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.
| Gestion en masa | Miro | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Gestion en masa | Miro |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 4.3 ★ |
| Total reviews | 8 | ★ 148 |
| Active installs | 508,367+ | 14,223,657+ |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Pricing | Free of charge trial | Free of charge |
Based on the data on this page, Gestion en masa is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs Miro's 4.3★ 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, Miro at Free of charge. 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.
Miro has the larger user base (148 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 — Miro's 148-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: Gestion en masa audit • Miro audit
Both Gestion en masa and Miro offer paid plans only. Gestion en masa starts at Free of charge trial; Miro starts at Free of charge. 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 Miro (4.3★ from 148 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 4.3★). 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. Miro has the deeper published review base (148 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.
Gestion en masa typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (8 reviews). Miro typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (148 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. Gestion en masa and Miro 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.
