Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| External Links | Social Feed | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | ||
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | images | images |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated |
| Metric | External Links | Social Feed |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 4.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | 1 | ★ 649 |
| Free plan | — | ★ Yes |
| Pricing | Paid | Free plan available |
| Built for Shopify | — | — |
| Pricing tiers | 3 tiers | ★ 4 tiers |
| Listed features | 4 | 4 |
| Languages | 7 supported | 1 supported |
Based on the data on this page, External Links is the stronger choice for most Wix App Market merchants — 5.0★ vs Social Feed's 4.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base. On pricing, Social Feed offers a free tier (Free plan available) while External Links starts at Paid. The free option meaningfully reduces evaluation cost, particularly for stores at sub-1K monthly orders where the entry-paid tier can outpace the value delivered. Social Feed has the larger user base (649 reviews vs 1), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. External Links's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat. Recommended by store size: small/early-stage merchants who need fast install and low risk should default to External Links; mid-market and enterprise merchants with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — Social Feed's 649-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than External Links'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 Wix App Market 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: External Links audit • Social Feed audit
| — |
| Keyword | External Links | Social Feed |
|---|---|---|
| canonical links | #7 | #36 |
| links | #9 | #39 |
| tiktok | #46 | #34 |
Social Feed is the cheaper option — it offers a free plan (Free plan available). External Links starts at Paid. Both publish their pricing on the Wix App Market marketplace; AppRanks mirrors what's listed on each refresh cycle.
External Links has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 1 reviews) compared to Social Feed (4.0★ from 649 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.
It depends on what you're optimizing for. External Links fits better if you prioritize rating consistency; Social Feed is the call if you need the larger user base. Read both apps' detail pages on AppRanks for the full feature breakdown, install counts, and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the Wix App Market marketplace. Social Feed has more onboarding documentation maturity (649 reviews vs 1), which usually translates to better-tested setup wizards and quicker time-to-value. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly — read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for merchant-reported install experience.
External Links typically suits early-stage and growth-mode stores based on its review-base composition (1 reviews). Social Feed aligns more with early-stage and growth-mode stores (649 reviews). Larger review bases generally mean the app has been load-tested at scale — relevant if you're processing high order volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.
Migration support varies by app and category. External Links and Social Feed 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 External Links" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
