Adecco vs Microsoft Teams
Adecco
Adecco Group Technology Center GmbH
Google Play
$0/mo
~$0/yr · 313K installs
VS
Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Corporation
Google Play
$5.55M/mo
~$66.61M/yr · 608.1M installs
Revenue winner
Microsoft Teams wins
+555079900% vs other
Installs winner
Microsoft Teams wins
+194407% vs other
MAU winner
Microsoft Teams wins
+35265% vs other
Rating winner
Adecco wins
+1% vs other
Why Microsoft Teams is winning
Top 3 reasons - backed by the public App Store / Play Store numbers.
- Microsoft Teams earns roughly 5550799× more per month than Adecco - $5.55M vs $0.
- Subscription model. Microsoft Teams runs a $36.04/mo subscription that compounds; Adecco relies on one-shot IAP or ads.
- Bigger install base. Microsoft Teams has ~608.1M lifetime installs vs Adecco's ~313K - 1945.1× the funnel top.
→ Find more apps with this revenue gap · Full Microsoft Teams report
Side-by-side metrics
Bars scale to whichever app is bigger on that row. Green = winner.
Adecco
vs
Microsoft Teams
Monthly revenue (est.)?
$0
▶
$5.55M
Annual revenue (est.)
$0
▶
$66.61M
Lifetime installs (est.)
313K
▶
608.1M
Monthly active users (est.)?
28K
▶
9.7M
App Store rating
4.67★
◀
4.62★
Total ratings
3K
▶
8.6M
US grossing rank
-
=
-
Cheapest monthly sub
No sub
▶
$36.04
IAP tiers detected
0 tiers
=
0 tiers
- Category
- Business
- Price
- Free
- Released
- Jun 29, 2021
- Last updated
- Mar 25, 2026
- File size
- -
- Content rating
- Everyone
- Version
- 4.5.1387
- Languages
- -
- Category
- Business
- Price
- Free
- Released
- Nov 2, 2016
- Last updated
- May 4, 2026
- File size
- -
- Content rating
- Everyone
- Version
- 1416/1.0.0.2026074102
- Languages
- -
Adecco trajectory
Microsoft Teams trajectory
FAQ
Which makes more money, Adecco or Microsoft Teams? v
Microsoft Teams earns about $5.55M per month, while Adecco earns about $0. That is a ∞× revenue gap (~$5.55M more per month for Microsoft Teams). Annual revenue: Adecco ≈ $0/year, Microsoft Teams ≈ $66.61M/year. Estimates are derived from public Google Play signals - grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings and category benchmarks.
Which has more downloads, Adecco or Microsoft Teams? v
Microsoft Teams leads with about 608.1M estimated downloads vs 313K for Adecco - a 1945.1× gap. Adecco reports 100,000+ installs on Google Play. Microsoft Teams reports 500,000,000+ installs on Google Play.
Are Adecco and Microsoft Teams in the same Google Play category and competing for the same money? v
Yes - both apps sit in the Business category, which means they compete directly for the same paying users and category-level wallet share. Direct competitors, head-to-head.
What in-app purchases and subscription pricing do Adecco and Microsoft Teams offer? v
Adecco: no IAP detected on the public listing. Microsoft Teams: IAP range $9.99 - $129.99 per item. Adecco runs a "No App Store revenue (monetizes off-store)" monetization model; Microsoft Teams runs "Subscription (~$36.04/mo)". Scraped tier prices and detected subscription pricing drive the bulk of the per-app revenue estimate above.
Which has better ratings, Adecco or Microsoft Teams? v
Adecco edges ahead with ★ 4.7 vs ★ 4.6 (gap of 0.1 stars). Rating volume: Adecco 387 ratings, Microsoft Teams 96K ratings. Higher rating volume = stronger ASO signal even when star averages are close.
How accurate are these Adecco vs Microsoft Teams revenue estimates? v
Directional - typically within 2-3× of actual money earned for popular apps. The $0 for Adecco and $5.55M for Microsoft Teams are derived from Google Play grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings volume and category benchmarks (Business) - net of the 15-30% Apple/Google store cut. Real revenue depends on country mix, retention, refunds and ad fill rate, none of which Apple or Google publish.
How do I compare Adecco or Microsoft Teams to a different Google Play app? v
Use the search box at the bottom of this page or paste any two Google Play links into the homepage tool. We auto-generate a permanent comparison URL with revenue, downloads, IAP tiers, subscription pricing and grossing rank for both apps.