Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
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.
| Anteater | Gestion en masa | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Anteater | Gestion en masa |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 5.0 ★ | 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | 8 | 8 |
| Active installs | 643+ | 508,367+ |
| Free plan | — | ★ Yes |
| Pricing | Not available | Free of charge trial |
Anteater and Gestion en masa are evenly matched on rating (5.0★ vs 5.0★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow.
On pricing, Gestion en masa offers a free tier (Free of charge trial) while Anteater starts at Not available. The free option meaningfully reduces evaluation cost, particularly at low usage volumes where the entry-paid tier can outpace the value delivered.
Recommended evaluation path: install both apps' free tiers (where available) and run them in parallel on a small cohort for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most admins the deciding factor will be a single integration or workflow detail that's hard to compare from listing pages alone.
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: Anteater audit • Gestion en masa audit
Gestion en masa is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free of charge trial). Anteater starts at Not available. Both publish their pricing on the Google Workspace Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Anteater (5.0★, 8 reviews) and Gestion en masa (5.0★, 8 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.
AppRanks cannot recommend one over the other from published marketplace data: the Google Workspace Marketplace does not expose a rating or review base that separates them. Read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown, and compare against your own requirements rather than a headline number.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Google Workspace Marketplace. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly, and the Google Workspace Marketplace publishes no review base that would let us infer it for these two — read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.
Anteater typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (8 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. Anteater 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.
