groupthink
文字起こし · 2.4K 月間訪問数
Groupthinkは、すべての主要プラットフォームでメモ取り、文字起こし、要約を自動化するAI会議アシスタントです。チームコラボレーションのための可視ボット、または慎重なキャプチャのためのプライベートデスクトップレコーダーというユニークな選択肢を提供します。スマートアジェンダ、アクションアイテム追跡、過去の会議を照会できるAIチャットなどの機能により、プロフェッショナルの会議時間を最大30%節約します。
VS
Supernormal
会議 · 102.5K 月間訪問数
Supernormalは、Google Meet、Zoom、Microsoft Teamsでの会議を自動的に録音、文字起こし、要約するAI会議アシスタントです。メモ取り、アクションアイテムの特定、実用的なインサイトの提供を代行し、会話に集中できるよう支援します。
製品概要
groupthink 製品概要
Groupthinkは、すべての主要プラットフォームでメモ取り、文字起こし、要約を自動化するAI会議アシスタントです。チームコラボレーションのための可視ボット、または慎重なキャプチャのためのプライベートデスクトップレコーダーというユニークな選択肢を提供します。スマートアジェンダ、アクションアイテム追跡、過去の会議を照会できるAIチャットなどの機能により、プロフェッショナルの会議時間を最大30%節約します。
Preview
Supernormal 製品概要
Supernormalは、Google Meet、Zoom、Microsoft Teamsでの会議を自動的に録音、文字起こし、要約するAI会議アシスタントです。メモ取り、アクションアイテムの特定、実用的なインサイトの提供を代行し、会話に集中できるよう支援します。
Preview
Detailed feature comparison
| Feature | groupthink | Supernormal |
|---|---|---|
| 主要カテゴリー | 文字起こし | 会議 |
| 追加日 | 2025-08-05 | 2025-08-14 |
| 価格 | フリーミアム | フリーミアム |
| 公式サイト | groupthink.com | www.supernormal.com |
| 製品タイプ | アプリ | 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 | 2.4K | 102.5K |
| 月間成長率 | -11.3% | -40.6% |
| お気に入り | 96 | 126 |
| Details | 詳細を見る | 詳細を見る |
groupthink vs Supernormal monthly traffic
Compare groupthink and Supernormal by monthly reach, traffic trend, visit depth, top regions, and acquisition sources.
How to interpret the traffic data
In the groupthink vs Supernormal monthly traffic comparison, groupthink currently shows 2.4K visits and Supernormal shows 102.5K; Supernormal has about 41.9 times the visible traffic of groupthink, an absolute difference of about 100K 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.
groupthink monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
2.4K
平均滞在時間
0:39
訪問あたりページ数
1.84
直帰率
44.19%
Data updated 2026-06-11
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 13K 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 10.2K 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 3.2K 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 3.6K 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 2.8K 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 2.4K 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 100% | 2.4K |
検索キーワード
ai and groupthinkgroupthinggroup thinkgroupthinkgroupthink intelligence
Supernormal monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
102.5K
平均滞在時間
0:28
訪問あたりページ数
2.02
直帰率
43.77%
Data updated 2026-06-11
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 242.6K 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 165.9K 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 142.3K 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 142.6K 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 172.5K 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 102.5K 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 44.64% | 45.7K |
| 🇧🇷Brazil | 33.89% | 34.7K |
| 🇳🇬Nigeria | 7.26% | 7.4K |
| 🇦🇷Argentina | 7.15% | 7.3K |
| 🇬🇭Ghana | 7.06% | 7.2K |
流入元
| Source type | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| ダイレクト | 87.41% | 89.6K |
| 参照元 | 9.92% | 10.2K |
| Eメール | 2.67% | 2.7K |
検索キーワード
supernomralsupernormalsupernormal aisupernormal appsupernormal desktop app
Traffic-based selection guidance: If public market visibility is an important first-pass criterion, investigate Supernormal 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 groupthink and Supernormal
groupthink Core features
タスク管理
文字起こし
会議アシスタント
Supernormal Core features
タスク管理
会議
文字起こし
自動化
Use cases
groupthink Use cases
行動項目
コラボレーション
グーグル ミート
会議要約
Microsoft Teams
生産性
文字起こし
ズーム
アジェンダ
AIアシスタント
議事録
Supernormal Use cases
行動項目
コラボレーション
グーグル ミート
会議要約
Microsoft Teams
生産性
文字起こし
ズーム
AIノートテイカー
自動化
会議アシスタント
groupthink vs Supernormal：In-depth comparison and selection guidance
First decide whether the products solve the same kind of need
This in-depth groupthink vs Supernormal comparison uses only the product records, taxonomy, audience, traffic, and community signals available on this page. groupthink is primarily listed under “文字起こし”, while Supernormal is primarily listed under “会議”, so the first decision is whether your actual task matches their recorded scope.
The structured fields currently show these decision-relevant differences: Primary category (groupthink: 文字起こし; Supernormal: 会議); Product type (groupthink: App; Supernormal: Website); Monthly visits (groupthink: 2.4K; Supernormal: 102.5K); Monthly growth (groupthink: -11.3%; Supernormal: -40.6%); Favorites (groupthink: 96; Supernormal: 126). These facts are more useful for selection than brand visibility alone.
What market visibility and monthly traffic mean
In the groupthink vs Supernormal monthly traffic comparison, groupthink currently shows 2.4K visits and Supernormal shows 102.5K; Supernormal has about 41.9 times the visible traffic of groupthink, an absolute difference of about 100K 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 Supernormal 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
groupthink and Supernormal currently overlap in shared categories: タスク管理; shared tags: 行動項目、コラボレーション、グーグル ミート、会議要約、Microsoft Teams、生産性、文字起こし、ズーム. This can place both on the same shortlist, but it does not prove equal implementation, depth, or cost.
groupthink's unique categories/tags are 文字起こし、会議アシスタント、アジェンダ、AIアシスタント、議事録; Supernormal's are 会議、文字起こし、自動化、AIノートテイカー、会議アシスタント. 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
groupthink has no verified rating, 0 comments, 96 favorites, and 111 likes；Supernormal has no verified rating, 0 comments, 126 favorites, and 122 likes。
Neither product has enough rating or comment samples for a credible reputation ranking.
Selection guidance by actual need
When to evaluate groupthink first
Put groupthink on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “文字起こし” and especially 文字起こし、会議アシスタント、アジェンダ、AIアシスタント、議事録. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
groupthink also currently records: pricing is freemium, product type is app, 2.4K 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.
When to evaluate Supernormal first
Put Supernormal on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “会議” and especially 会議、文字起こし、自動化、AIノートテイカー、会議アシスタント. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
Supernormal also currently records: pricing is freemium, product type is website, 102.5K 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 groupthink and Supernormal, 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 groupthink and Supernormal?
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.