Google · GitHub
コードライブラリ · 398K 月間訪問数
GitHub上のGoogleの公式オープンソースハブです。ライブラリ、開発者ツール、フレームワーク、スタイルガイドなど、2,700以上の公開リポジトリをホストしています。Java、C++、Python、Android、Web技術などを扱う開発者にとって重要なリソースであり、本番環境でテストされたコードを提供し、コミュニティの協力を促進します。
製品概要
Google · GitHub 製品概要
GitHub上のGoogleの公式オープンソースハブです。ライブラリ、開発者ツール、フレームワーク、スタイルガイドなど、2,700以上の公開リポジトリをホストしています。Java、C++、Python、Android、Web技術などを扱う開発者にとって重要なリソースであり、本番環境でテストされたコードを提供し、コミュニティの協力を促進します。
Preview
openapps 製品概要
人気のSaaS製品に代わる、高品質なオープンソースソフトウェアのキュレーションディレクトリ。経験豊富な技術者によって検証されたopenappsは、開発者、企業、個人が開発、分析、生産性、コンテンツ管理など、あらゆるタスクに対応する無料で信頼性の高いツールを見つけるのに役立ちます。
Preview
Detailed feature comparison
| Feature | Google · GitHub | openapps |
|---|---|---|
| 主要カテゴリー | コードライブラリ | SaaS代替 |
| 追加日 | 2025-08-11 | 2025-08-15 |
| 価格 | 無料 | 無料 |
| 公式サイト | google.github.io | openapps.pro |
| 製品タイプ | ウェブサイト | ウェブサイト |
| Performance data | ||
| ユーザー評価 | 未確認 | 未確認 |
| コメント | 0 | 0 |
| 月間訪問数 | 398K | 38.4K |
| 月間成長率 | -13.9% | -9.5% |
| お気に入り | 108 | 114 |
| Details | 詳細を見る | 詳細を見る |
Google · GitHub vs openapps monthly traffic
Compare Google · GitHub and openapps by monthly reach, traffic trend, visit depth, top regions, and acquisition sources.
How to interpret the traffic data
In the Google · GitHub vs openapps monthly traffic comparison, Google · GitHub currently shows 398K visits and openapps shows 38.4K; Google · GitHub has about 10.4 times the visible traffic of openapps, an absolute difference of about 359.7K visits. This reflects visible reach, not feature quality or paid users.
Both tools provide verified traffic details, so monthly trends, visit depth, regions, and acquisition sources can be compared on the same basis.
Google · GitHub monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
398K
平均滞在時間
0:38
訪問あたりページ数
1.94
直帰率
51.75%
Data updated 2026-06-15
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 701K 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 766K 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 668.9K 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 814.5K 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 462.4K 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 398K 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 55.23% | 219.8K |
| 🇮🇳India | 13.71% | 54.6K |
| 🇷🇺Russia | 12.27% | 48.8K |
| 🇬🇧United Kingdom | 9.67% | 38.5K |
| 🇩🇪Germany | 9.12% | 36.3K |
流入元
| Source type | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| ダイレクト | 69.41% | 276.3K |
| 参照元 | 29.75% | 118.4K |
| Eメール | 0.84% | 3.3K |
検索キーワード
aeuxgoogle cpp style guidegoogle c style guidegoogle java style guidegsoc
openapps monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
38.4K
平均滞在時間
0:09
訪問あたりページ数
1.88
直帰率
38.43%
Data updated 2026-06-15
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 1.9K 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 161.9K 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 66.4K 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 46.4K 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 42.4K 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 38.4K 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 29.95% | 11.5K |
| 🇫🇷France | 23.24% | 8.9K |
| 🇻🇳Vietnam | 18.22% | 7K |
| 🇧🇷Brazil | 14.51% | 5.6K |
| 🇮🇳India | 14.08% | 5.4K |
検索キーワード
anythingllmopenappsopenapps/proralllysupermemory
Traffic-based selection guidance: If public market visibility is an important first-pass criterion, investigate Google · GitHub first. The final choice should still follow taxonomy, use case, and a real trial because higher traffic does not prove broader capabilities or better workflow fit.
Usage comparison
Compare the core capabilities of Google · GitHub and openapps
Google · GitHub Core features
コードライブラリ
開発者ツール
リソースハブ
openapps Core features
SaaS代替
ソフトウェアディレクトリ
リソース発見
Use cases
Google · GitHub Use cases
コードリポジトリ
開発者ツール
オープンソース
Android
C++
フレームワーク
GitHub
グーグル
Java
ライブラリ
プログラミング
Python
openapps Use cases
コードリポジトリ
開発者ツール
オープンソース
アプリディスカバリー
フリーソフトウェア
生産性
SaaS代替
ソフトウェアディレクトリ
Google · GitHub vs openapps：In-depth comparison and selection guidance
First decide whether the products solve the same kind of need
This in-depth Google · GitHub vs openapps comparison uses only the product records, taxonomy, audience, traffic, and community signals available on this page. Google · GitHub is primarily listed under “コードライブラリ”, while openapps is primarily listed under “SaaS代替”, so the first decision is whether your actual task matches their recorded scope.
The structured fields currently show these decision-relevant differences: Primary category (Google · GitHub: コードライブラリ; openapps: SaaS代替); Monthly visits (Google · GitHub: 398K; openapps: 38.4K); Monthly growth (Google · GitHub: -13.9%; openapps: -9.5%); Favorites (Google · GitHub: 108; openapps: 114); Website (Google · GitHub: google.github.io; openapps: openapps.pro). These facts are more useful for selection than brand visibility alone.
What market visibility and monthly traffic mean
In the Google · GitHub vs openapps monthly traffic comparison, Google · GitHub currently shows 398K visits and openapps shows 38.4K; Google · GitHub has about 10.4 times the visible traffic of openapps, an absolute difference of about 359.7K visits. This reflects visible reach, not feature quality or paid users.
Both tools provide verified traffic details, so monthly trends, visit depth, regions, and acquisition sources can be compared on the same basis.
If public market visibility is an important first-pass criterion, investigate Google · GitHub first. The final choice should still follow taxonomy, use case, and a real trial because higher traffic does not prove broader capabilities or better workflow fit.
Product positioning, use cases, and roles
Google · GitHub and openapps currently overlap in shared tags: コードリポジトリ、開発者ツール、オープンソース. This can place both on the same shortlist, but it does not prove equal implementation, depth, or cost.
Google · GitHub's unique categories/tags are コードライブラリ、開発者ツール、リソースハブ、Android、C++、フレームワーク、GitHub、グーグル; openapps's are SaaS代替、ソフトウェアディレクトリ、リソース発見、アプリディスカバリー、フリーソフトウェア、生産性. These unique fields are the strongest differentiators: validate the product whose recorded scope matches the task instead of following traffic alone.
What ratings, comments, and favorites can tell you
Google · GitHub has no verified rating, 0 comments, 108 favorites, and 123 likes；openapps has no verified rating, 0 comments, 114 favorites, and 119 likes。
Neither product has enough rating or comment samples for a credible reputation ranking.
Selection guidance by actual need
When to evaluate Google · GitHub first
Put Google · GitHub on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “コードライブラリ” and especially コードライブラリ、開発者ツール、リソースハブ、Android、C++、フレームワーク. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
Google · GitHub also currently records: pricing is free, product type is website, 398K verified monthly visits, no verified user rating. Verify any hard requirement around price, platform, or reach before trial, and do not let sparse review data substitute for testing.
When to evaluate openapps first
Put openapps on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “SaaS代替” and especially SaaS代替、ソフトウェアディレクトリ、リソース発見、アプリディスカバリー、フリーソフトウェア、生産性. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
openapps also currently records: pricing is free, product type is website, 38.4K verified monthly visits, no verified user rating. Verify any hard requirement around price, platform, or reach before trial, and do not let sparse review data substitute for testing.
How to validate the recommendation before deciding
The available data describes positioning, public visibility, and community signals, but it cannot prove output quality, speed, integration effort, privacy, or long-term cost in your workflow. Before deciding, run the same representative tasks in Google · GitHub and openapps, then record completion time, accuracy, manual corrections, and the real paid threshold. A like-for-like trial turns this comparison into a defensible adoption decision.
比較 FAQ
How should I choose between Google · GitHub and openapps?
Compare positioning, pricing, taxonomy, and traffic maturity, then verify the latest details on each official website.
Where does this comparison data come from?
The factual baseline is derived from product, taxonomy, traffic, and community data. Reviewed editorial conclusions show their source and verification date.
What do unknown fields mean?
Unknown means there is not enough reliable evidence; the page does not fill gaps with assumptions.