collider.com vs screenrant.com
Market traction comparison · Updated Jul 2026
| collider.com | screenrant.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 27.2M | 45.7M | screenrant.com |
| Bounce Rate | 57.5% | 69.2% | collider.com |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 30 | Tie |
| Domain Age | 28y 7m | 22y 9m | collider.com |
collider.com leads in 2 of 4 dimensions, while screenrant.com leads in 1.
Growth Momentum
| collider.com | screenrant.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 27.2M | 45.7M | screenrant.com |
| MoM Change | +22% | -5% | collider.com |
| Avg. Session | 0m50s | 1m07s | screenrant.com |
| Pages / Visit | 1.5 | 1.7 | screenrant.com |
Growth Momentum · Insight
collider.com is growing faster (+22%) but visitors stay 1.3x shorter (0m50s vs 1m07s). Rapid growth with declining engagement depth often signals lower-quality traffic or shallow product usage.
Acquisition Strategy
| collider.com | screenrant.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Channel | Search 44% | Search 47% | |
| Bounce Rate | 57.5% | 69.2% | collider.com |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 30 | — |
Keyword Overlap Rate: 5%
Acquisition Strategy · Insight
collider.com acquires users primarily through Search (44%), while screenrant.com relies on Search (47%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — collider.com's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while screenrant.com's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
Business Maturity
| collider.com | screenrant.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain Age | 28y 7m | 22y 9m | collider.com |
| Registered | Jan 1998 | Dec 2003 | |
| Expires | Feb 2028 | Dec 2026 |
Business Maturity · Insight
collider.com has been in the market for over a decade, indicating established presence.
Market Position
| collider.com | screenrant.com | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Rank | #2.9K | #1.5K | screenrant.com |
| Category Rank | #40 | #27 | screenrant.com |
Key Takeaways
- •screenrant.com is losing traffic (-5%) despite 45.7M monthly visits. collider.com's +22% growth puts it on a trajectory to overtake.
- •collider.com is growing faster (+22%) but visitors stay 1.3x shorter (0m50s vs 1m07s). Rapid growth with declining engagement depth often signals lower-quality traffic or shallow product usage.
- •collider.com acquires users primarily through Search (44%), while screenrant.com relies on Search (47%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — collider.com's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while screenrant.com's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
- •screenrant.com has 1.7x more traffic (45.7M vs 27.2M), though both operate at comparable scale.
- •collider.com is growing (+22%) while screenrant.com is declining (-5%).
- •collider.com has a 12 percentage point lower bounce rate (57% vs 69%), indicating better landing page relevance or more targeted traffic.
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