[UPD] SharkBite Classic vs Build to Survive [TESTING]

Build to Survive [TESTING] currently leads with 6,607 concurrent players against 1,061, a 6.2× advantage. On all-time peak the record belongs to Build to Survive [TESTING] at 7,729 concurrent players, versus 1,460. Momentum favours Build to Survive [TESTING]: +8.2% week over week versus -6.4% for [UPD] SharkBite Classic. Lifetime, [UPD] SharkBite Classic has more visits (1.7B vs 268.8M). Full side-by-side history for [UPD] SharkBite Classic and Build to Survive [TESTING] is charted above.

[UPD🥳] SharkBite Classic 🦈
1,061
playing now
1,134 24h peak · 1.7B visits
VS
Build to Survive 🛠️ [TESTING]
6,607
playing now
6,794 24h peak · 268.8M visits

Player count history

[UPD] SharkBite ClassicBuild to Survive [TESTING]

Head to head

Metric [UPD] SharkBite Classic Build to Survive [TESTING]Difference
Playing now1,0616,6075,546 (6.2×)
24h peak1,1346,7945,660 (6.0×)
24h average9045,7164,812 (6.3×)
7-day peak1,3766,9685,592 (5.1×)
7-day average7765,1354,359 (6.6×)
30-day peak1,3766,9685,592 (5.1×)
All-time peak1,4607,7296,269 (5.3×)
24h change 27.0% 14.8%
7d change 6.4% 8.2%
Total visits1.7B268.8M1.4B (6.2×)
Visits (24h)90.6K457.9K367.3K (5.1×)
Visits (7d)638.5K3.2M2.5M (5.0×)
Favorites5.1M5.6M488.4K
Rating89.6%96.5%
Global rank (players)#1,531#306of 8,283
Trending score47.342.3
CreatedApr 10, 2017Aug 12, 2021
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 — 13 days for [UPD] SharkBite Classic, 12 for Build to Survive [TESTING].