Gestion en masa vs Hunter for Sheets™

Based on the data on this page, Gestion en masa is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs Hunter for Sheets™'s 4.4★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.

Pricing entry tiers: Gestion en masa at Free of charge trial, Hunter for Sheets™ at Free of charge with paid features. 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.

Hunter for Sheets™ has the larger user base (163 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 — Hunter for Sheets™'s 163-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.

Is Gestion en masa or Hunter for Sheets™ cheaper?

Both Gestion en masa and Hunter for Sheets™ offer paid plans only. Gestion en masa starts at Free of charge trial; Hunter for Sheets™ starts at Free of charge with paid features. Compare the per-tier features in the Pricing section above before committing.

Which has better reviews, Gestion en masa or Hunter for Sheets™?

Gestion en masa has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 8 reviews) compared to Hunter for Sheets™ (4.4★ from 163 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.

Should I choose Gestion en masa or Hunter for Sheets™?

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.

Which is faster to set up, Gestion en masa or Hunter for Sheets™?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Google Workspace Marketplace. Hunter for Sheets™ has the deeper published review base (163 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.

Which works better for small vs large Google Workspace Marketplace admins?

Gestion en masa typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (8 reviews). Hunter for Sheets™ typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (163 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.

Can I migrate data between Gestion en masa and Hunter for Sheets™?

Migration support varies by app and category. Gestion en masa and Hunter for Sheets™ 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.