Comparison

Rings Linking vs Caterpillar.io

Price, ratings, monetisation and update history for both apps, side by side — with what reviewers say about each.

Head to head
About

Rings Linking

Connect three or more same-colored elements to clear them and advance through levels. Choose between Normal Mode, where you fill bars to progress, or 90s Mode for a timed high-score challenge.

Highlights
  • Link same-colored elements
  • Advance through levels
  • Normal Mode progression
  • 90s Mode high-score challenge
  • Addictive gameplay
Read full description

A highly addictive puzzle game. Game Rule: - Link 3 or more same color elements together. Normal Mode: - Fill up all 4 bars will go to next level. - Game Time = 60 +(level-1) + previous level remain time - Time up will be game over 90s Mode: - Each game will have 90s, get the score as highest as you can

About

Caterpillar.io

Control a caterpillar by swiping to change its direction and long-pressing to accelerate. Avoid touching the screen's edges to keep the caterpillar alive. It's a simple yet challenging game of survival.

Highlights
  • Swipe controls for direction
  • Long press to speed up
  • Edge avoidance gameplay
  • Simple, intuitive mechanics
  • Single-player survival
Features
Read full description

Swipe on screen to change the caterpillar moving direction. Long press on screen to speed up. Don't touch the edge.

Screenshots

Rings Linking4 screens
Caterpillar.io3 screens

Verdict

The call

Rings Linking and Caterpillar.io both sit at 2.3 stars, but that hides the real split: 53% of Rings Linking's written reviews are positive against 0% of Caterpillar.io's. Caterpillar.io's advantage is price (Free vs $4.00) and in-app purchases (none vs 1). On rating, ratings volume and device support there is nothing between them.

Scored on Price · Rating · Positive reviews · Number of ratings · Update frequency · Ads · In-app purchases · Monetization · Best chart rank · Devices · Requires iOS

CostPrice · In-app purchases · Ads · Monetization

Caterpillar.io is free to download; Rings Linking costs $4.00 up front. Rings Linking sells 1 one-off in-app purchase. Caterpillar.io asks for nothing beyond the download.

ReceptionRating · Positive reviews · Number of ratings

On the App Store both sit at effectively the same score — 2.3 for Rings Linking against 2.3 for Caterpillar.io. Both are backed by a comparable volume of ratings — 3 and 3 respectively. Written reviews are what separate them: 53% of Rings Linking's written reviews are positive against 0% of Caterpillar.io's.

Scorecard6 real differences · 4 level
Rings Linking versus Caterpillar.io: the parameters behind the verdict, then further details
ParameterRings LinkingCaterpillar.io
Price$4.00Free — better
Rating2.3 (3 ratings)2.3 (3 ratings) — better
Positive reviews52.6% of reviews — better0.0% of reviews
Number of ratings33
Update frequencyEvery 10 months—
AdsYesNo — better
In-app purchasesYesNo — better
MonetizationFree with in-app purchasesFree — better
DevicesiPhone, iPadiPhone, iPad, iPod — better
Requires iOS16.610.0 — better
Further details — not scored
Size20 MB21 MB
Age rating4+4+
DeveloperOscar TsangAppulet, Inc

Customer experience

Rings Linking

All ratings3 ratings
Positive33.3%
Neutral0.0%
Negative66.7%
Written reviews19 reviews
Positive52.6%
Neutral21.1%
Negative26.3%

Caterpillar.io

All ratings3 ratings
Positive33.3%
Neutral0.0%
Negative66.7%
Written reviews2 reviews
Positive0.0%
Neutral0.0%
Negative100.0%

In-app purchases

1 purchases

Rings Linking

One-time1
  • Remove advertisement$1.99
None

Caterpillar.io

No in-app purchases

Questions

Is Rings Linking free?
Rings Linking costs $4.00, and also offers in-app purchases.
Is Caterpillar.io free?
Caterpillar.io is free to download, with no in-app purchases.
Which has better reviews, Rings Linking or Caterpillar.io?
Caterpillar.io is rated higher. Rings Linking averages 2.3 out of 5 from 3 ratings, while Caterpillar.io averages 2.3 from 3 ratings.
Do Rings Linking or Caterpillar.io have ads?
Rings Linking shows ads; Caterpillar.io does not.

Other comparisons