Enhanced Field History Tracking vs Apsona for Salesforce

Based on the data on this page, Apsona for Salesforce is the stronger choice for most Salesforce AppExchange admins — 4.9★ vs Enhanced Field History Tracking's 4.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.

On pricing, Enhanced Field History Tracking offers a free tier (free) while Apsona for Salesforce starts at paid. For early-stage teams validating fit, the free-tier path lets you run the app on real workloads before committing budget.

Apsona for Salesforce has the larger user base (299 reviews vs 19), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Enhanced Field History Tracking'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 Apsona for Salesforce; mid-market and enterprise admins with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Enhanced Field History Tracking's 19-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Apsona for Salesforce'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 Salesforce AppExchange 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 Enhanced Field History Tracking or Apsona for Salesforce cheaper?

Enhanced Field History Tracking is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (free). Apsona for Salesforce starts at paid. Both publish their pricing on the Salesforce AppExchange; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.

Which has better reviews, Enhanced Field History Tracking or Apsona for Salesforce?

Apsona for Salesforce has the higher average rating (4.9★ from 299 reviews) compared to Enhanced Field History Tracking (4.0★ from 19 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.

Should I choose Enhanced Field History Tracking or Apsona for Salesforce?

Apsona for Salesforce holds the higher average rating (4.9★ vs 4.0★). 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, Enhanced Field History Tracking or Apsona for Salesforce?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Salesforce AppExchange. Apsona for Salesforce has the deeper published review base (299 vs 19), 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 Salesforce AppExchange admins?

Enhanced Field History Tracking typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (19 reviews). Apsona for Salesforce typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (299 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.