flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 vs QuickBend: Conduit Bending
Revenue, downloads, ratings and category context for two iOS apps. Figures are estimates and should be read as ranges, not exact totals.
flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘Shanghai Xiandi Network Technology Co., Ltd - Productivity
QuickBend: Conduit BendingBret Hardman - Productivity| Metric | flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 | QuickBend: Conduit Bending | Readout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated revenue / mo | $*** - opens with trial | $*** - opens with trial | flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 |
| Revenue band | $*** - opens with trial | $*** - opens with trial | Use range + confidence |
| Estimated downloads / mo | $*** - opens with trial | $*** - opens with trial | flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 |
| Download band | $*** - opens with trial | $*** - opens with trial | Use range + confidence |
| Rating | - | 4.82 | QuickBend: Conduit Bending |
| Rating count | - | 3.8k | QuickBend: Conduit Bending |
| Tracked keywords | — | — | Tie |
| Category | Productivity | Productivity | Same market |
Which app is bigger?
flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 and QuickBend: Conduit Bending are compared inside Productivity with monthly revenue, downloads, rating, review volume, keyword footprint, category placement and range context. flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 leads on monthly downloads in the current readout, and flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 wins the revenue readout (the exact figures open with the paid plan), flomo浮墨-极简卡片笔记、轻便签与日记备忘 wins demand, QuickBend: Conduit Bending has deeper review volume, and Tie has the larger tracked keyword footprint. The better app depends on the job: choose the revenue leader when you need monetization proof, choose the download leader when reach matters, and choose the higher-rated or deeper-reviewed app when market trust is the constraint. Read both ranges rather than only the midpoint, then open the category hub and related collections to see whether this pair is an outlier or a normal category pattern.