Coles vs Picnic: order, cook, eat

Picnic: order, cook, eat earns about $0 per month, while Coles earns about $0. That is a ∞× revenue gap. Annual revenue: Coles ≈ $0/year, Picnic: order, cook, eat ≈ $0/year. Estimates are derived from public Google Play signals - grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings and category benchmarks.

Picnic: order, cook, eat leads with about 7.5M estimated downloads vs 3.6M for Coles - a 2.1× gap. Coles reports 1,000,000+ installs on Google Play. Picnic: order, cook, eat reports 5,000,000+ installs on Google Play.

Yes - both apps sit in the Shopping category, which means they compete directly for the same paying users and category-level wallet share. Direct competitors, head-to-head.

Coles does not appear to offer in-app purchases on its public listing. Picnic: order, cook, eat does not appear to offer in-app purchases. Monetization model: Coles runs "No App Store revenue (monetizes off-store)", Picnic: order, cook, eat runs "No App Store revenue (monetizes off-store)".

Picnic: order, cook, eat edges ahead with ★ 3.8 vs ★ 3.5 (gap of 0.3 stars). Rating volume: Coles 54 ratings, Picnic: order, cook, eat 67 ratings. Higher rating volume = stronger ASO signal even when star averages are close.

Directional - typically within 2-3× of actual money earned for popular apps. The $0 for Coles and $0 for Picnic: order, cook, eat are derived from Google Play grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings volume and category benchmarks (Shopping) - 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.

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.