Side-by-side comparison · 24 data points
| Magic robots.txt | Robots.txt Quick Editor | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | — | — |
| Description | ||
| Screenshots | — | — |
| Languages | ||
| Platforms | ||
| Developer | ||
| Listed | — | — |
| Last updated | — | — |
| Metric | Magic robots.txt | Robots.txt Quick Editor |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 5.0 ★ | 5.0 ★ |
| Total reviews | 1 | ★ 2 |
| Active installs | 1,000+ | 800+ |
| Free plan | — | — |
Magic robots.txt and Robots.txt Quick Editor are evenly matched on rating (5.0★ vs 5.0★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow.
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: Magic robots.txt audit • Robots.txt Quick Editor audit
No tracked changes.
Magic robots.txt (5.0★, 1 reviews) and Robots.txt Quick Editor (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.
AppRanks cannot separate these two on rating — both sit at 5.0★. Robots.txt Quick Editor does carry the larger published review base (2 vs 1). Read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.
Both apps are one-click installs from the WordPress Plugin Directory. Robots.txt Quick Editor has the deeper published review base (2 vs 1), 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.
Magic robots.txt typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (1 reviews). Robots.txt Quick Editor typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (2 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. Magic robots.txt and Robots.txt Quick Editor 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 Magic robots.txt" in each app's help center. AppRanks does not track migration tooling directly — this is a category-specific capability worth verifying before commitment.
