Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
Count, sum, average and filter cells by background color, font color and style — across sheets too.
| Custom Count and Sum | Skolsynk | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Custom Count and Sum | Skolsynk |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 3.2 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 115 | 2 |
| Active installs | 308,010+ | 712,243+ |
| Free plan | ★ Yes | — |
| Pricing | Free of charge with paid features | Not available |
Based on the data on this page, Skolsynk is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs Custom Count and Sum's 3.2★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
On pricing, Custom Count and Sum offers a free tier (Free of charge with paid features) while Skolsynk starts at Not available. For early-stage teams validating fit, the free-tier path lets you run the app on real workloads before committing budget.
Custom Count and Sum has the larger user base (115 reviews vs 2), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Skolsynk's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage admins who need fast install and low risk should default to Skolsynk; mid-market and enterprise admins with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Custom Count and Sum's 115-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Skolsynk'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: Custom Count and Sum audit • Skolsynk audit
No tracked changes.
Custom Count and Sum is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free of charge with paid features). Skolsynk starts at Not available. Both publish their pricing on the Google Workspace Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Skolsynk has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 2 reviews) compared to Custom Count and Sum (3.2★ from 115 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Skolsynk holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 3.2★). 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. Custom Count and Sum has the deeper published review base (115 vs 2), 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.
Custom Count and Sum typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (115 reviews). Skolsynk typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (2 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. Custom Count and Sum and Skolsynk 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 Skolsynk" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
