almanac.com vs history.com
Market traction comparison · Updated Jul 2026
| almanac.com | history.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 3.9M | 5.2M | history.com |
| Bounce Rate | 63.0% | 58.8% | history.com |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 30 | Tie |
| Domain Age | 31y 10m | 31y 10m | almanac.com |
history.com leads in 2 of 4 dimensions, while almanac.com leads in 1.
Growth Momentum
| almanac.com | history.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 3.9M | 5.2M | history.com |
| MoM Change | -1% | +4% | history.com |
| Avg. Session | 1m22s | 1m30s | history.com |
| Pages / Visit | 1.9 | 2.0 | history.com |
Growth Momentum · Insight
almanac.com is losing traffic (-1%) despite 3.9M monthly visits. history.com's +4% growth puts it on a trajectory to overtake.
Acquisition Strategy
| almanac.com | history.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Channel | Search 61% | Search 52% | |
| Bounce Rate | 63.0% | 58.8% | history.com |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 30 | — |
Keyword Overlap Rate: 11%
| Keyword | Volume | almanac.com | history.com |
|---|---|---|---|
| new year's day | 4.9M | #5 | #8 |
| may day | 13.4K | #7 | #6 |
Acquisition Strategy · Insight
almanac.com acquires users primarily through Search (61%), while history.com relies on Search (52%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — history.com's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while almanac.com's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
Business Maturity
| almanac.com | history.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain Age | 31y 10m | 31y 10m | almanac.com |
| Registered | Oct 1994 | Oct 1994 | |
| Expires | Oct 2027 | Oct 2026 |
Business Maturity · Insight
almanac.com has been in the market for over a decade, indicating established presence.
Market Position
| almanac.com | history.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Rank | #18.4K | #13.9K | history.com |
| Category Rank | #245 | #109 | history.com |
almanac.com only
history.com only
Market Position · Insight
Each has untapped markets the other serves: almanac.com could expand into Australia, while history.com could target United Kingdom.
Key Takeaways
- •almanac.com is losing traffic (-1%) despite 3.9M monthly visits. history.com's +4% growth puts it on a trajectory to overtake.
- •almanac.com acquires users primarily through Search (61%), while history.com relies on Search (52%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — history.com's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while almanac.com's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
- •history.com has 1.3x more traffic (5.2M vs 3.9M), though both operate at comparable scale.
- •history.com is growing (+4%) while almanac.com is declining (-1%).
- •They share 6 keywords (11% overlap), indicating direct search competition.
You've seen the gap. Now steal the playbook.
A Growth Teardown reverse-engineers exactly how each product grows — traffic sources, backlink strategy, keyword gaps, and scored action items you can copy this week.
Related Comparisons
Report based on data from July 2026