y2k: 2000s photo editor vs YouTube
Revenue, downloads, ratings and category context for two iOS apps. Figures are estimates and should be read as ranges, not exact totals.
y2k: 2000s photo editorAbel Thomas Noble - Photo & Video
YouTubeGoogle - Photo & Video| Metric | y2k: 2000s photo editor | YouTube | Readout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated revenue / mo | $*** - opens with trial | ~$195M | YouTube |
| Revenue band | $*** - opens with trial | $195M (point est.) | Use range + confidence |
| Estimated downloads / mo | $*** - opens with trial | ~7.0M | YouTube |
| Download band | $*** - opens with trial | 7.0M (point est.) | Use range + confidence |
| Rating | - | 4.67 | YouTube |
| Rating count | - | 48.3M | YouTube |
| Tracked keywords | — | 5 | YouTube |
| Category | Photo & Video | Photo & Video | Same market |
Which app is bigger?
y2k: 2000s photo editor and YouTube are compared inside Photo & Video with monthly revenue, downloads, rating, review volume, keyword footprint, category placement and range context. YouTube leads on monthly downloads in the current readout, and YouTube wins the revenue readout (the exact figures open with the paid plan), YouTube wins demand, YouTube has deeper review volume, and YouTube 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.