Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
Dig into your Google Groups settings and root out the hidden risks. Adds Google Groups administrative mojo to any Google Sheet.
| Gopher for Groups | Kami | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Gopher for Groups | Kami |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 4.4 ★ |
| Total reviews | 3 | ★ 14k |
| Active installs | 672,035+ | 59,738,321+ |
| Free plan | — | ★ Yes |
| Pricing | Not available | Free of charge with paid features |
Based on the data on this page, Gopher for Groups is the stronger choice for most Google Workspace Marketplace admins — 5.0★ vs Kami's 4.4★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
On pricing, Kami offers a free tier (Free of charge with paid features) while Gopher for Groups starts at Not available. The free option meaningfully reduces evaluation cost, particularly at low usage volumes where the entry-paid tier can outpace the value delivered.
Kami has the larger user base (13,574 reviews vs 3), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Gopher for Groups'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 Gopher for Groups; mid-market and enterprise admins with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Kami's 13,574-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Gopher for Groups'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: Gopher for Groups audit • Kami audit
Kami is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free of charge with paid features). Gopher for Groups starts at Not available. Both publish their pricing on the Google Workspace Marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
Gopher for Groups has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 3 reviews) compared to Kami (4.4★ from 13,574 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
Gopher for Groups 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. Kami has the deeper published review base (13,574 vs 3), 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.
Gopher for Groups typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (3 reviews). Kami typically suits established teams with steady usage based on its published review base (13,574 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. Gopher for Groups and Kami 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 Gopher for Groups" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
