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 | Zoho Show | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Gestion en masa | Zoho Show |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 3.8 ★ |
| Total reviews | 8 | ★ 177 |
| Active installs | 508,367+ | 1,800,536+ |
| Free plan | ★ Yes | — |
| Pricing | Free of charge trial | Not available |
Based on the data on this page, Gestion en masa is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs Zoho Show's 3.8★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
On pricing, Gestion en masa offers a free tier (Free of charge trial) while Zoho Show 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.
Zoho Show has the larger user base (177 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 — Zoho Show's 177-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 • Zoho Show audit
Gestion en masa is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free of charge trial). Zoho Show starts at Not available. Both publish their pricing on the Google Workspace Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Gestion en masa has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 8 reviews) compared to Zoho Show (3.8★ from 177 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 3.8★). 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. Zoho Show has the deeper published review base (177 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). Zoho Show typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (177 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 Zoho Show 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.
