FNAF: Eternal Nights vs [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death

[FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death currently leads with 7,026 concurrent players against 5,310. On all-time peak the record belongs to [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death at 10,397 concurrent players, versus 7,002. Momentum favours FNAF: Eternal Nights: -7.9% week over week versus -13.5% for [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death. Lifetime, [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death has more visits (326.1M vs 317.7M). Full side-by-side history for FNAF: Eternal Nights and [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death is charted above.

FNAF: Eternal Nights 🍕
5,310
playing now
5,550 24h peak · 317.7M visits
VS
[⏰FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death
7,026
playing now
10,142 24h peak · 326.1M visits

Player count history

FNAF: Eternal Nights[FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death

Head to head

Metric FNAF: Eternal Nights [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of DeathDifference
Playing now5,3107,0261,716
24h peak5,55010,1424,592 (1.8×)
24h average4,5016,7672,266 (1.5×)
7-day peak6,88510,1423,257
7-day average3,9736,5412,568 (1.6×)
30-day peak6,88510,1423,257
All-time peak7,00210,3973,395
24h change 25.5% 13.8%
7d change 7.9% 13.5%
Total visits317.7M326.1M8.4M
Visits (24h)507K500.3K6.7K
Visits (7d)3.8M3.7M77.5K
Favorites848.2K639.6K208.7K
Rating94.4%87.3%
Global rank (players)#296#227of 7,866
Trending score48.313.2
CreatedOct 27, 2022Mar 8, 2025
GenreSurvivalSurvival

Other comparisons

Both games are sampled on the same schedule and plotted on a shared time axis, so the comparison is like for like. Peaks, averages and growth come from RoVitals's own recorded history — 12 days for FNAF: Eternal Nights, 12 for [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death.