Build to Survive vs [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death
[FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death currently leads with 7,676 concurrent players against 5,978. On all-time peak the record belongs to [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death at 10,397 concurrent players, versus 7,252. Momentum favours Build to Survive: -4.0% week over week versus -14.5% for [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death. Lifetime, Build to Survive has more visits (409.1M vs 326.2M). Full side-by-side history for Build to Survive and [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death is charted above.
Build to Survive 🛠️
5,978
playing now
7,252 24h peak · 409.1M visits
VS
[⏰FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death
7,676
playing now
10,142 24h peak · 326.2M visits
Player count history
Build to Survive[FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death
Head to head
| Metric | Build to Survive | [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Playing now | 5,978 | 7,676 | 1,698 |
| 24h peak | 7,252 | 10,142 | 2,890 |
| 24h average | 5,430 | 6,928 | 1,498 |
| 7-day peak | 7,252 | 10,142 | 2,890 |
| 7-day average | 5,049 | 6,505 | 1,456 |
| 30-day peak | 7,252 | 10,142 | 2,890 |
| All-time peak | 7,252 | 10,397 | 3,145 |
| 24h change | ▲ 3.5% | ▲ 17.2% | — |
| 7d change | ▼ 4.0% | ▼ 14.5% | — |
| Total visits | 409.1M | 326.2M | 82.9M |
| Visits (24h) | 511.8K | 508K | 3.8K |
| Visits (7d) | 3.5M | 3.7M | 258.4K |
| Favorites | 10.9M | 639.7K | 10.3M (17.1×) |
| Rating | 96.2% | 87.3% | — |
| Global rank (players) | #314 | #232 | of 7,928 |
| Trending score | 28.1 | 24.9 | — |
| Created | Feb 12, 2021 | Mar 8, 2025 | — |
| Genre | Survival | 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 — 12 days for Build to Survive, 13 for [FASHIONABLY LATE] Die of Death.