intmath
宿題ヘルパー · 134.5K 月間訪問数
intmathは、AIを搭載した数学問題解決ツールおよびインタラクティブ学習プラットフォームです。基本的な代数から高度な微積分まで、幅広い数学問題に対して即座にステップバイステップの解答を提供します。写真による問題提出や24時間年中無休のオンデマンドチュータリングなどの機能を備え、学生の成績向上と数学への理解を深めることを目的としています。
製品概要
intmath 製品概要
intmathは、AIを搭載した数学問題解決ツールおよびインタラクティブ学習プラットフォームです。基本的な代数から高度な微積分まで、幅広い数学問題に対して即座にステップバイステップの解答を提供します。写真による問題提出や24時間年中無休のオンデマンドチュータリングなどの機能を備え、学生の成績向上と数学への理解を深めることを目的としています。
Preview
MathGPT 製品概要
MathGPTは、代数、微積分、物理、化学など幅広い科目のための即時ステップバイステップ解答を提供するAI搭載の数学ソルバー兼宿題ヘルパーです。オンデマンドのビデオ解説とインタラクティブなクイズを独自に生成し、理解を深め、小学生から大学生までのための24時間年中無休のパーソナルチューターとして機能します。
Preview
Detailed feature comparison
| Feature | intmath | MathGPT |
|---|---|---|
| 主要カテゴリー | 宿題ヘルパー | 宿題ヘルパー |
| 追加日 | 2025-08-04 | 2025-08-05 |
| 価格 | フリーミアム | フリーミアム |
| 公式サイト | www.intmath.com | math-gpt.org |
| 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 | 134.5K | 3.6M |
| 月間成長率 | 2.1% | -18.6% |
| お気に入り | 111 | 93 |
| Details | 詳細を見る | 詳細を見る |
intmath vs MathGPT monthly traffic
Compare intmath and MathGPT by monthly reach, traffic trend, visit depth, top regions, and acquisition sources.
How to interpret the traffic data
In the intmath vs MathGPT monthly traffic comparison, intmath currently shows 134.5K visits and MathGPT shows 3.6M; MathGPT has about 27 times the visible traffic of intmath, an absolute difference of about 3.5M 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.
intmath monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
134.5K
平均滞在時間
0:44
訪問あたりページ数
2.32
直帰率
42.85%
Data updated 2026-06-15
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 203.4K 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 182.8K 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 131.8K 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 135.7K 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 131.7K 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 134.5K 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 52.74% | 70.9K |
| 🇮🇳India | 13.34% | 17.9K |
| 🇬🇧United Kingdom | 11.64% | 15.7K |
| 🇺🇿Uzbekistan | 11.38% | 15.3K |
| 🇩🇪Germany | 10.9% | 14.7K |
流入元
| Source type | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| ダイレクト | 75.96% | 102.2K |
| 参照元 | 21.7% | 29.2K |
| Eメール | 2.34% | 3.1K |
検索キーワード
domain and rangedomain and range of a functionpolar to rectangular calculatorsimpson's rulewhat is phase angle in circuit complex impedance
MathGPT monthly traffic:
Latest traffic
月間訪問数
3.6M
平均滞在時間
4:59
訪問あたりページ数
3.61
直帰率
44.39%
Data updated 2026-06-15
Monthly traffic trend
- 2025/9: 3.8M 月間訪問数
- 2026/1: 3.1M 月間訪問数
- 2026/2: 3.4M 月間訪問数
- 2026/3: 4M 月間訪問数
- 2026/4: 4.5M 月間訪問数
- 2026/5: 3.6M 月間訪問数
主要地域
Top 5 countries/regions
| Country/region | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸United States | 61.45% | 2.2M |
| 🇦🇺Australia | 18.67% | 677.4K |
| 🇬🇧United Kingdom | 12.09% | 438.6K |
| 🇨🇦Canada | 3.94% | 142.9K |
| 🇫🇷France | 3.85% | 139.7K |
流入元
| Source type | Percentage | Traffic |
|---|---|---|
| ダイレクト | 86.51% | 3.1M |
| 参照元 | 12.67% | 459.7K |
| Eメール | 0.82% | 29.8K |
検索キーワード
math aimath gptmathgptmath solvermaths solver
Traffic-based selection guidance: If public market visibility is an important first-pass criterion, investigate MathGPT 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 intmath and MathGPT
intmath Core features
宿題ヘルパー
問題解決
数学
MathGPT Core features
宿題ヘルパー
問題解決
数学
Use cases
intmath Use cases
AIチューター
宿題のヘルプ
数学ソルバー
ステップバイステップソリューション
代数学
微積分
教育
インタラクティブ学習
問題解決
学生ツール
三角法
MathGPT Use cases
AIチューター
宿題のヘルプ
数学ソルバー
ステップバイステップソリューション
AIビデオ
代数ソルバー
微積分ソルバー
化学ヘルパー
物理ヘルパー
練習試験
STEM教育
学習ガイド
intmath vs MathGPT：In-depth comparison and selection guidance
First decide whether the products solve the same kind of need
This in-depth intmath vs MathGPT comparison uses only the product records, taxonomy, audience, traffic, and community signals available on this page. intmath is primarily listed under “宿題ヘルパー”, while MathGPT is primarily listed under “宿題ヘルパー”, so the first decision is whether your actual task matches their recorded scope.
The structured fields currently show these decision-relevant differences: Monthly visits (intmath: 134.5K; MathGPT: 3.6M); Monthly growth (intmath: 2.1%; MathGPT: -18.6%); Favorites (intmath: 111; MathGPT: 93); Website (intmath: www.intmath.com; MathGPT: math-gpt.org); Added (intmath: 2025-08-04; MathGPT: 2025-08-05). These facts are more useful for selection than brand visibility alone.
What market visibility and monthly traffic mean
In the intmath vs MathGPT monthly traffic comparison, intmath currently shows 134.5K visits and MathGPT shows 3.6M; MathGPT has about 27 times the visible traffic of intmath, an absolute difference of about 3.5M 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 MathGPT 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
intmath and MathGPT currently overlap in shared categories: 宿題ヘルパー、問題解決、数学; shared tags: AIチューター、宿題のヘルプ、数学ソルバー、ステップバイステップソリューション. This can place both on the same shortlist, but it does not prove equal implementation, depth, or cost.
intmath's unique categories/tags are 代数学、微積分、教育、インタラクティブ学習、問題解決、学生ツール、三角法; MathGPT's are AIビデオ、代数ソルバー、微積分ソルバー、化学ヘルパー、物理ヘルパー、練習試験、STEM教育、学習ガイド. 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
intmath has no verified rating, 0 comments, 111 favorites, and 117 likes；MathGPT has no verified rating, 0 comments, 93 favorites, and 96 likes。
Neither product has enough rating or comment samples for a credible reputation ranking.
Selection guidance by actual need
When to evaluate intmath first
Put intmath on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “宿題ヘルパー” and especially 代数学、微積分、教育、インタラクティブ学習、問題解決、学生ツール. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
intmath also currently records: pricing is freemium, product type is website, 134.5K 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.
When to evaluate MathGPT first
Put MathGPT on the priority trial list when the task aligns with “宿題ヘルパー” and especially AIビデオ、代数ソルバー、微積分ソルバー、化学ヘルパー、物理ヘルパー、練習試験. This follows recorded positioning and does not imply unlisted capabilities are absent.
MathGPT also currently records: pricing is freemium, product type is website, 3.6M 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 intmath and MathGPT, 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 intmath and MathGPT?
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.