Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| ContentBeast Auto Publisher | rankd | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | ContentBeast Auto Publisher | rankd — Content Quality Scorer |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 5.0 ★ | — |
| Total reviews | 3 | 0 |
| Active installs | 30+ | — |
| Free plan | — | — |
Based on the data on this page, ContentBeast Auto Publisher is the stronger choice for most WordPress Plugin Directory site owners — 5.0★ vs rankd — Content Quality Scorer's 0.0★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.
Recommended by size: small/early-stage site owners who need fast install and low risk should default to ContentBeast Auto Publisher; mid-market and enterprise site owners with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — rankd — Content Quality Scorer's 0-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than ContentBeast Auto Publisher'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: ContentBeast Auto Publisher audit • rankd — Content Quality Scorer audit
ContentBeast Auto Publisher holds the higher average rating (5.0★ 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. ContentBeast Auto Publisher has the deeper published review base (3 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.
ContentBeast Auto Publisher typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (3 reviews). rankd — Content Quality Scorer 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. ContentBeast Auto Publisher and rankd — Content Quality Scorer 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 rankd — Content Quality Scorer" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
