Loading content…
1. Listing metadata
Field-level data| AceRoute | Gestion en masa | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| AceRoute | Gestion en masa | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
Its main functions are to facilitate the registration, modification, adhesion to groups and the elimination of users. Also the creation of shared folders,all in a massive, fast and easy way.
| Metric | AceRoute | Gestion en masa |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.0 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 22 | 8 |
| Active installs | 335,652+ | 508,367+ |
| Free plan | — | ★ Yes |
| Pricing | Paid | Free of charge trial |
Based on the data on this page, Gestion en masa is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs AceRoute's 4.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
On pricing, Gestion en masa offers a free tier (Free of charge trial) while AceRoute starts at Paid. The free option meaningfully reduces evaluation cost, particularly at low usage volumes where the entry-paid tier can outpace the value delivered.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage admins who need fast install and low risk should default to Gestion en masa; mid-market and enterprise admins with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — AceRoute's 22-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Gestion en masa's broader-but-shallower coverage.
This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Google Workspace Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.
Read each app's audit: AceRoute audit • Gestion en masa audit
Gestion en masa is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free of charge trial). AceRoute starts at Paid. Both publish their pricing on the Google Workspace Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Gestion en masa has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 8 reviews) compared to AceRoute (4.0★ from 22 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Gestion en masa holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.0★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Google Workspace Marketplace. AceRoute has the deeper published review base (22 vs 8), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
AceRoute typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (22 reviews). Gestion en masa typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (8 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. AceRoute and Gestion en masa both publish their export options on their marketplace listing pages (or in their support docs); some apps offer one-click import from competitors, others require CSV. The fastest check: search "import from Gestion en masa" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.