Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Content Analytics | Head, Footer and Post Injections | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Content Analytics | Head, Footer and Post Injections |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ★ 5.0 ★ | 4.9 ★ |
| Total reviews | 1 | ★ 735 |
| Active installs | 10+ | 300,000+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
| Built for Shopify | — | — |
Content Analytics and Head, Footer and Post Injections are evenly matched on rating (5.0★ vs 4.9★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow. Head, Footer and Post Injections has the larger user base (735 reviews vs 1), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. Content Analytics'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: Content Analytics audit • Head, Footer and Post Injections audit
Content Analytics (5.0★, 1 reviews) and Head, Footer and Post Injections (4.9★, 735 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. Content Analytics fits better if you prioritize rating consistency; Head, Footer and Post Injections 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 WordPress Plugin Directory marketplace. Head, Footer and Post Injections has more onboarding documentation maturity (735 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.
Content Analytics typically suits early-stage and growth-mode stores based on its review-base composition (1 reviews). Head, Footer and Post Injections aligns more with early-stage and growth-mode stores (735 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. Content Analytics and Head, Footer and Post Injections 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 Content Analytics" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
