Catan Classic vs Shredder Chess
Catan Classic
USM
Google Play
$56.7K/mo
~$680.5K/yr · 861K installs
VS
Shredder Chess
shredderchess.com
Google Play
$4.3K/mo
~$51.1K/yr · 102K installs
Revenue winner
Catan Classic wins
+1232% vs other
Installs winner
Catan Classic wins
+747% vs other
MAU winner
Catan Classic wins
+367% vs other
Rating winner
Shredder Chess wins
+88% vs other
Why Catan Classic is winning
Top 3 reasons - backed by the public App Store / Play Store numbers.
- Catan Classic earns roughly 13× more per month than Shredder Chess - $56.7K vs $4.3K.
- Subscription model. Catan Classic runs a $4.99/mo subscription that compounds; Shredder Chess relies on one-shot IAP or ads.
- Bigger install base. Catan Classic has ~861K lifetime installs vs Shredder Chess's ~102K - 8.5× the funnel top.
→ Find more apps with this revenue gap · Full Catan Classic report
Side-by-side metrics
Bars scale to whichever app is bigger on that row. Green = winner.
vs
Monthly revenue (est.)?
$56.7K
◀
$4.3K
Annual revenue (est.)
$680.5K
◀
$51.1K
Lifetime installs (est.)
861K
◀
102K
Monthly active users (est.)?
41K
◀
9K
App Store rating
2.38★
▶
4.46★
Total ratings
28K
◀
3K
US grossing rank
-
=
-
Cheapest monthly sub
$4.99
◀
No sub
IAP tiers detected
0 tiers
=
0 tiers
- Category
- Board
- Price
- USD5.49
- Released
- Jul 1, 2011
- Last updated
- Mar 27, 2024
- File size
- -
- Content rating
- Everyone
- Version
- 4.8.3
- Languages
- -
- Category
- Board
- Price
- USD3.49
- Released
- Sep 8, 2010
- Last updated
- Feb 25, 2026
- File size
- -
- Content rating
- Everyone
- Version
- 1.9
- Languages
- -
Catan Classic trajectory
Shredder Chess trajectory
FAQ
Which makes more money, Catan Classic or Shredder Chess? v
Catan Classic earns about $56.7K per month, while Shredder Chess earns about $4.3K. That is a 13.3× revenue gap (~$52.5K more per month for Catan Classic). Annual revenue: Catan Classic ≈ $680.5K/year, Shredder Chess ≈ $51.1K/year. Estimates are derived from public Google Play signals - grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings and category benchmarks.
Which has more downloads, Catan Classic or Shredder Chess? v
Catan Classic leads with about 861K estimated downloads vs 102K for Shredder Chess - a 8.5× gap. Catan Classic reports 500,000+ installs on Google Play. Shredder Chess reports 100,000+ installs on Google Play.
Are Catan Classic and Shredder Chess in the same Google Play category and competing for the same money? v
Yes - both apps sit in the Board 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 Catan Classic and Shredder Chess offer? v
Catan Classic: IAP range $2.49 - $9.99 per item. Shredder Chess: no IAP detected on the public listing. Catan Classic runs a "Paid app ($5.49)" monetization model; Shredder Chess runs "Paid app ($3.49)". Scraped tier prices and detected subscription pricing drive the bulk of the per-app revenue estimate above.
Which has better ratings, Catan Classic or Shredder Chess? v
Shredder Chess edges ahead with ★ 4.5 vs ★ 2.4 (gap of 2.1 stars). Rating volume: Catan Classic 4K ratings, Shredder Chess 367 ratings. Higher rating volume = stronger ASO signal even when star averages are close.
How accurate are these Catan Classic vs Shredder Chess revenue estimates? v
Directional - typically within 2-3× of actual money earned for popular apps. The $56.7K for Catan Classic and $4.3K for Shredder Chess are derived from Google Play grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings volume and category benchmarks (Board) - 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 Catan Classic or Shredder Chess 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.
