Climb 1,000 Stairs vs Build to Survive [TESTING]
Build to Survive [TESTING] currently leads with 4,297 concurrent players against 2,089, a 2.1× advantage. On all-time peak the record belongs to Build to Survive [TESTING] at 7,729 concurrent players, versus 3,040. Momentum favours Build to Survive [TESTING]: +4.2% week over week versus -10.2% for Climb 1,000 Stairs. Lifetime, Climb 1,000 Stairs has more visits (724.5M vs 268.9M). Full side-by-side history for Climb 1,000 Stairs and Build to Survive [TESTING] is charted above.
Climb 1,000 Stairs
2,089
playing now
3,040 24h peak · 724.5M visits
VS
Build to Survive 🛠️ [TESTING]
4,297
playing now
6,794 24h peak · 268.9M visits
Player count history
Climb 1,000 StairsBuild to Survive [TESTING]
Head to head
| Metric | Climb 1,000 Stairs | Build to Survive [TESTING] | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Playing now | 2,089 | 4,297 | 2,208 (2.1×) |
| 24h peak | 3,040 | 6,794 | 3,754 (2.2×) |
| 24h average | 2,360 | 5,027 | 2,667 (2.1×) |
| 7-day peak | 3,040 | 6,794 | 3,754 (2.2×) |
| 7-day average | 1,368 | 4,966 | 3,598 (3.6×) |
| 30-day peak | 3,040 | 6,794 | 3,754 (2.2×) |
| All-time peak | 3,040 | 7,729 | 4,689 (2.5×) |
| 24h change | ▲ 41.5% | ▲ 2.3% | — |
| 7d change | ▼ 10.2% | ▲ 4.2% | — |
| Total visits | 724.5M | 268.9M | 455.6M (2.7×) |
| Visits (24h) | 380.6K | 472.3K | 91.7K |
| Visits (7d) | 1.5M | 3.2M | 1.7M (2.1×) |
| Favorites | 14.8M | 5.6M | 9.1M (2.6×) |
| Rating | 67.7% | 96.5% | — |
| Global rank (players) | #734 | #344 | of 8,339 |
| Trending score | 240.3 | 4.5 | — |
| Created | Sep 17, 2020 | Aug 12, 2021 | — |
| Genre | Obby & Platformer | Survival | — |
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 — 10 days for Climb 1,000 Stairs, 13 for Build to Survive [TESTING].