Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Head, Footer and Post Injections | WP Client Reports | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Head, Footer and Post Injections | WP Client Reports |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.9 ★ | ★ 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | ★ 735 | 5 |
| Active installs | 200,000+ | 6,000+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
Head, Footer and Post Injections and WP Client Reports 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.
Head, Footer and Post Injections has the larger user base (735 reviews vs 5), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. WP Client Reports'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 for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most site owners 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: Head, Footer and Post Injections audit • WP Client Reports audit
| Keyword | Head, Footer and Post Injections | WP Client Reports |
|---|---|---|
| contact form | Not ranked | #655 |
| custom form | Not ranked | #786 |
| forms | Not ranked | #846 |
No tracked changes.
Head, Footer and Post Injections (4.9★, 735 reviews) and WP Client Reports (5.0★, 5 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.
WP Client Reports holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.9★). 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 WordPress Plugin Directory. Head, Footer and Post Injections has the deeper published review base (735 vs 5), 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.
Head, Footer and Post Injections typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (735 reviews). WP Client Reports typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (5 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. Head, Footer and Post Injections and WP Client Reports 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 WP Client Reports" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
