Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Head, Footer and Post Injections | oEmbed Infogram | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Head, Footer and Post Injections | oEmbed Infogram |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.9 ★ | — |
| Total reviews | 735 | 0 |
| Active installs | 200,000+ | 90+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
Based on the data on this page, Head, Footer and Post Injections is the stronger choice for most WordPress Plugin Directory site owners — 4.9★ vs oEmbed Infogram's 0.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Head, Footer and Post Injections has the larger user base (735 reviews vs 0), which usually maps to broader integration coverage, faster bug-fix cadence, and a deeper bench of community workflow patterns. oEmbed Infogram's smaller cohort can be an advantage for niche workflows where the bigger app has accumulated bloat.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage site owners who need fast install and low risk should default to Head, Footer and Post Injections; mid-market and enterprise site owners with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — oEmbed Infogram's 0-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than Head, Footer and Post Injections'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 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 • oEmbed Infogram audit
Head, Footer and Post Injections holds the higher average rating (4.9★ vs 0.0★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the WordPress Plugin Directory. Head, Footer and Post Injections has the deeper published review base (735 vs 0), 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). oEmbed Infogram typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (0 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 oEmbed Infogram 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 oEmbed Infogram" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
