AppsFlyer

Name: AppsFlyer
Brand: AppsFlyer

AppsFlyer is a B2B marketing measurement and analytics platform that attributes mobile app installs and post-install events to marketing sources, provides deep linking and fraud prevention, and supports privacy-oriented data collaboration and BI-ready data exports.

Est 2011|Valuation $2.7B|Raised $308.7M|66 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 148K|Web traffic 101.6M|FTEs 1,536|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsMarketing Automation Platforms Mobile Attribution (MMP)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

AppsFlyer vs Adjust - Adjust comparison pages emphasize pricing transparency, raw data access, and automation tooling while criticizing AppsFlyer for complex tiering. This is an inherently biased source but aligns with recurring customer feedback on pricing and complexity. AppsFlyer vs Kochava - Aggregator pages present Kochava as offering pay-per-use pricing with potentially simpler integration messaging, though these sources may be outdated. Validate directly with vendor documentation. AppsFlyer vs Branch/Singular - Branch is often considered when deep linking and cross-platform journey tracking are central. - Singular is often considered when marketing analytics are closely tied to spend and creative-level reporting.

Market share and adoption trends

Vendor-reported profiles claim adoption by a large customer base worldwide; third-party technology footprint sources indicate broad deployment with regional variation. Interpret such claims as directional; verify with independent market analysis for formal market-share conclusions.

	AppsFlyer	Adjust	Kochava
Starting Price	Zero plan: Free (owned media); Growth: pay-as-you-go per-conversion pricing	Public messaging emphasizes pricing transparency; enterprise pricing typically quote-based	Public sources indicate pay-per-use packages with flexible event/volume models
Best For	Mobile advertisers needing broad integrations, measurement, and a set of add-on modules	Teams prioritizing pricing clarity and modularity (per Adjust messaging)	Teams seeking flexible packaging and potential cost advantages depending on event/volume model
Key Strength	Established attribution product, wide integration ecosystem, documented enterprise access controls (SSO/SCIM/audit)	Competitor materials claim clearer pricing, automation tooling, and modular suites	Competitor positioning includes flexible pricing and centralized optimization tooling
Key Weakness	Reviews frequently cite cost, complexity, and occasional performance issues	Competitor messaging is biased; independent reviews should be consulted	Market perception varies; due diligence needed on integrations and enterprise features

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

AppsFlyer vs Adjust

Adjust comparison pages emphasize pricing transparency, raw data access, and automation tooling while criticizing AppsFlyer for complex tiering. This is an inherently biased source but aligns with recurring customer feedback on pricing and complexity.

AppsFlyer vs Kochava

Aggregator pages present Kochava as offering pay-per-use pricing with potentially simpler integration messaging, though these sources may be outdated. Validate directly with vendor documentation.

AppsFlyer vs Branch/Singular

Branch is often considered when deep linking and cross-platform journey tracking are central.
Singular is often considered when marketing analytics are closely tied to spend and creative-level reporting.

Market share and adoption trends

Vendor-reported profiles claim adoption by a large customer base worldwide; third-party technology footprint sources indicate broad deployment with regional variation. Interpret such claims as directional; verify with independent market analysis for formal market-share conclusions.

	AppsFlyer	Adjust	Kochava
Starting Price	Zero plan: Free (owned media); Growth: pay-as-you-go per-conversion pricing	Public messaging emphasizes pricing transparency; enterprise pricing typically quote-based	Public sources indicate pay-per-use packages with flexible event/volume models
Best For	Mobile advertisers needing broad integrations, measurement, and a set of add-on modules	Teams prioritizing pricing clarity and modularity (per Adjust messaging)	Teams seeking flexible packaging and potential cost advantages depending on event/volume model
Key Strength	Established attribution product, wide integration ecosystem, documented enterprise access controls (SSO/SCIM/audit)	Competitor materials claim clearer pricing, automation tooling, and modular suites	Competitor positioning includes flexible pricing and centralized optimization tooling
Key Weakness	Reviews frequently cite cost, complexity, and occasional performance issues	Competitor messaging is biased; independent reviews should be consulted	Market perception varies; due diligence needed on integrations and enterprise features