gong.io vs teamme.link
Market traction comparison · Updated Jul 2026
| gong.io | teamme.link | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 2.4M | 25.3K | gong.io |
| Bounce Rate | 34.1% | 47.2% | gong.io |
| SEO & Keywords | 35 | 30 | gong.io |
| Domain Age | 13y | 2y 7m | gong.io |
gong.io leads in 4 of 4 dimensions, while teamme.link leads in 0.
Growth Momentum
| gong.io | teamme.link | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly Visits | 2.4M | 25.3K | gong.io |
| MoM Change | +8% | +15% | teamme.link |
| Avg. Session | 5m54s | 0m35s | gong.io |
| Pages / Visit | 6.0 | 1.7 | gong.io |
Growth Momentum · Insight
teamme.link is growing +15% while gong.io grows +8%. At current trajectory, teamme.link could close the traffic gap within 13 months.
Acquisition Strategy
| gong.io | teamme.link | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Channel | Direct 64% | Direct 53% | |
| Bounce Rate | 34.1% | 47.2% | gong.io |
| SEO & Keywords | 35 | 30 | gong.io |
Keyword Overlap Rate: 983%
| Keyword | Volume | gong.io | teamme.link |
|---|---|---|---|
| gong careers | 6.6K | #1 | #6 |
Acquisition Strategy · Insight
gong.io acquires users primarily through Direct (64%), while teamme.link relies on Direct (53%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — gong.io's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while teamme.link's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
Business Maturity
| gong.io | teamme.link | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain Age | 13y | 2y 7m | gong.io |
| Registered | Aug 2013 | Jan 2024 | |
| Expires | Aug 2026 | Jan 2027 |
Business Maturity · Insight
gong.io has been in the market for over a decade, indicating established presence.
Market Position
| gong.io | teamme.link | Leads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Rank | #20.5K | #1.2M | gong.io |
| Category Rank | #90 | #149 | gong.io |
gong.io only
teamme.link only
Market Position · Insight
Each has untapped markets the other serves: gong.io could expand into Israel, Germany, while teamme.link could target Australia, India.
Key Takeaways
- •teamme.link is growing +15% while gong.io grows +8%. At current trajectory, teamme.link could close the traffic gap within 13 months.
- •gong.io acquires users primarily through Direct (64%), while teamme.link relies on Direct (53%). This reflects fundamentally different go-to-market strategies — gong.io's higher direct traffic suggests stronger brand recognition or product-led growth, while teamme.link's search reliance means growth is more scalable but more vulnerable to algorithm changes.
- •gong.io receives 94.1x more monthly traffic than teamme.link (2.4M vs 25.3K).
- •Both are growing, with teamme.link accelerating faster at +15% vs +8%.
- •gong.io keeps visitors significantly longer (5m54s avg session vs teamme.link's 0m35s), suggesting deeper product engagement or stickier content.
- •gong.io has a 13 percentage point lower bounce rate (34% vs 47%), 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