Google vs QR Scanner Pro *
Google
App Store
$4.70M/mo
~$56.45M/yr · 773.0M installs
VS
QR Scanner Pro *
Mild
App Store
$1.4K/mo
~$16.4K/yr · 45K installs
Revenue winner
Google wins
+344500% vs other
Installs winner
Google wins
+1737046% vs other
MAU winner
Google wins
+137043% vs other
Rating winner
Google wins
+11% vs other
Why Google is winning
Top 4 reasons - backed by the public App Store / Play Store numbers.
- Google earns roughly 3446× more per month than QR Scanner Pro * - $4.70M vs $1.4K.
- Premium pricing. Google charges $19.99/mo vs QR Scanner Pro *'s $8.33/mo - higher ARPU per converted user.
- Bigger install base. Google has ~773.0M lifetime installs vs QR Scanner Pro *'s ~45K - 17371.5× the funnel top.
- More monetization surfaces. Google runs 7 IAP tiers vs 3 - more chances to convert users at the right price.
Side-by-side metrics
Bars scale to whichever app is bigger on that row. Green = winner.
vs
Monthly revenue (est.)?
$4.70M
◀
$1.4K
Annual revenue (est.)
$56.45M
◀
$16.4K
Lifetime installs (est.)
773.0M
◀
45K
Monthly active users (est.)?
7.0M
◀
5K
App Store rating
4.65★
◀
4.20★
Total ratings
4.5M
◀
890
US grossing rank
-
=
-
Cheapest monthly sub
$19.99
◀
$8.33
IAP tiers detected
7 tiers
◀
3 tiers
- Category
- Utilities
- Price
- Free
- Released
- Feb 12, 2019
- Last updated
- May 4, 2026
- File size
- 392.0 MB
- Content rating
- 17+
- Version
- 419.4
- Languages
- Arabic, BN, Bulgarian, Catalan, Croatian, Czech +35 more
- Category
- Utilities
- Price
- Free
- Released
- Jul 22, 2024
- Last updated
- May 7, 2026
- File size
- 17.2 MB
- Content rating
- 4+
- Version
- 2.0.6
- Languages
- English
Google trajectory
QR Scanner Pro * trajectory
FAQ
Which makes more money, Google or QR Scanner Pro *? v
Google earns about $4.70M per month, while QR Scanner Pro * earns about $1.4K. That is a 3446.0× revenue gap (~$4.70M more per month for Google). Annual revenue: Google ≈ $56.45M/year, QR Scanner Pro * ≈ $16.4K/year. Estimates are derived from public App Store signals - grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings and category benchmarks.
Which has more downloads, Google or QR Scanner Pro *? v
Google leads with about 773.0M estimated downloads vs 45K for QR Scanner Pro * - a 17371.5× gap. Google's App Store downloads are estimated from 4.5M ratings × the standard 1:75 ratio. QR Scanner Pro *'s App Store downloads are estimated from 890 ratings.
Are Google and QR Scanner Pro * in the same App Store category and competing for the same money? v
Yes - both apps sit in the Utilities 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 Google and QR Scanner Pro * offer? v
Google: IAP range 7 tiers detected. QR Scanner Pro *: IAP range 3 tiers detected. Google runs a "Subscription (~$19.99/mo)" monetization model; QR Scanner Pro * runs "Subscription (~$8.33/mo)". Scraped tier prices and detected subscription pricing drive the bulk of the per-app revenue estimate above.
Which has better ratings, Google or QR Scanner Pro *? v
Google edges ahead with ★ 4.7 vs ★ 4.2 (gap of 0.5 stars). Rating volume: Google 4.5M ratings, QR Scanner Pro * 890 ratings. Higher rating volume = stronger ASO signal even when star averages are close.
How accurate are these Google vs QR Scanner Pro * revenue estimates? v
Directional - typically within 2-3× of actual money earned for popular apps. The $4.70M for Google and $1.4K for QR Scanner Pro * are derived from App Store grossing rank, scraped IAP tiers, ratings volume and category benchmarks (Utilities) - 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 Google or QR Scanner Pro * to a different App Store app? v
Use the search box at the bottom of this page or paste any two App Store 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.
