filmora.io vs wondershare.tw
Market traction comparison · Updated Jul 2026
| filmora.io | wondershare.tw | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 134.0K | 181.1K | wondershare.tw |
| Bounce Rate | 37.4% | 66.7% | filmora.io |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 35 | wondershare.tw |
| Domain Age | 9y 12m | 17y 4m | wondershare.tw |
wondershare.tw leads in 3 of 4 dimensions, while filmora.io leads in 1.
Growth Momentum
| filmora.io | wondershare.tw | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 134.0K | 181.1K | wondershare.tw |
| MoM Change | -4% | +17% | wondershare.tw |
| Avg. Session | 0m45s | 1m01s | wondershare.tw |
| Pages / Visit | 2.2 | 1.5 | filmora.io |
Growth Momentum · Insight
filmora.io is losing traffic (-4%) despite 134.0K monthly visits. wondershare.tw's +17% growth puts it on a trajectory to overtake.
Acquisition Strategy
| filmora.io | wondershare.tw | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Channel | Direct 67% | Search 60% | |
| Bounce Rate | 37.4% | 66.7% | filmora.io |
| SEO & Keywords | 30 | 35 | wondershare.tw |
Keyword Overlap Rate: 0%
Acquisition Strategy · Insight
filmora.io acquires users primarily through Direct (67%), while wondershare.tw relies on Search (60%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — filmora.io's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while wondershare.tw's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
Business Maturity
| filmora.io | wondershare.tw | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain Age | 9y 12m | 17y 4m | wondershare.tw |
| Registered | Sep 2016 | Apr 2009 | |
| Expires | Sep 2027 | Apr 2026 |
Business Maturity · Insight
wondershare.tw has been in the market for over a decade, indicating established presence.
Market Position
| filmora.io | wondershare.tw | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Rank | #308.9K | #295.8K | wondershare.tw |
| Category Rank | #2.2K | #166 | wondershare.tw |
filmora.io only
wondershare.tw only
Market Position · Insight
wondershare.tw is heavily concentrated in Taiwan (75%), creating dependency risk on a single market. filmora.io has a more diversified audience.
Each has untapped markets the other serves: filmora.io could expand into Taiwan, China, Hong Kong SAR China, while wondershare.tw could target India, Japan, Peru.
Key Takeaways
- •filmora.io is losing traffic (-4%) despite 134.0K monthly visits. wondershare.tw's +17% growth puts it on a trajectory to overtake.
- •filmora.io acquires users primarily through Direct (67%), while wondershare.tw relies on Search (60%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — filmora.io's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while wondershare.tw's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
- •wondershare.tw has 1.4x more traffic (181.1K vs 134.0K), though both operate at comparable scale.
- •wondershare.tw is growing (+17%) while filmora.io is declining (-4%).
- •filmora.io has a 29 percentage point lower bounce rate (37% vs 67%), indicating better landing page relevance or more targeted traffic.
- •filmora.io acquires traffic primarily through Direct (67%), while wondershare.tw relies on Search (60%) — fundamentally different acquisition strategies.
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