Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
Full Screen for Google Tasks™: a standalone desktop app for Google Tasks™
| Full Screen for Google Tasks™ | 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 | Full Screen for Google Tasks™ | Gestion en masa |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.4 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 129 | 8 |
| Active installs | 787,331+ | 508,367+ |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free of charge | 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 Full Screen for Google Tasks™'s 4.4★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Pricing entry tiers: Full Screen for Google Tasks™ at Free of charge, Gestion en masa at Free of charge trial. Check each app's tier structure for the capacity limits you actually need before deciding — the headline number is the same shape, but the gating shape per tier (seats, usage volume, integrations) varies.
Full Screen for Google Tasks™ has the larger user base (129 reviews vs 8), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Gestion en masa'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 Gestion en masa; mid-market and enterprise admins with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Full Screen for Google Tasks™'s 129-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: Full Screen for Google Tasks™ audit • Gestion en masa audit
Both Full Screen for Google Tasks™ and Gestion en masa offer paid plans only. Full Screen for Google Tasks™ starts at Free of charge; Gestion en masa starts at Free of charge trial. Compare the per-tier features in the Pricing section above before committing.
Gestion en masa has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 8 reviews) compared to Full Screen for Google Tasks™ (4.4★ from 129 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 4.4★). 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. Full Screen for Google Tasks™ has the deeper published review base (129 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.
Full Screen for Google Tasks™ typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (129 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. Full Screen for Google Tasks™ 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.
