Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Classic Editor | Double Image for Gutenberg | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Classic Editor | Double Image for Gutenberg |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.9 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 1.2k | 2 |
| Active installs | 9,000,000+ | 10+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
| Built for Shopify | — | — |
Classic Editor and Double Image for Gutenberg are evenly matched on rating (4.9★ vs 5.0★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow. Classic Editor has the larger user base (1,242 reviews vs 2), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Double Image for Gutenberg's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat. Recommended evaluation path: install both apps' free tiers (where available) and run them in parallel on a small cohort of orders for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most merchants the deciding factor will be a single integration or workflow detail that's hard to compare from listing pages alone. 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 WordPress Plugin Directory 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: Classic Editor audit • Double Image for Gutenberg audit
Classic Editor (4.9★, 1,242 reviews) and Double Image for Gutenberg (5.0★, 2 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.
It depends on what you're optimizing for. Classic Editor fits better if you prioritize broader integrations; Double Image for Gutenberg is the call if you need the higher-rated option. 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 WordPress Plugin Directory marketplace. Classic Editor has more onboarding documentation maturity (1,242 reviews vs 2), 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.
Classic Editor typically suits early-stage and growth-mode stores based on its review-base composition (1,242 reviews). Double Image for Gutenberg aligns more with early-stage and growth-mode stores (2 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. Classic Editor and Double Image for Gutenberg 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 Double Image for Gutenberg" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
