simple site counter vs google analytics: why webmetr is better for daily statistics

when a site owner wants to see statistics, he usually does not want to take an analyst course. he needs to quickly understand simple things: how many views there were, how many people came, where they came from, what pages were opened, from which countries and devices the audience was, whether anyone is online now.

this is what webmetr was created for. this is a counter for the site in an understandable old style: added the code to the page, got statistics, opened the report by direct url and saw the numbers. without unnecessary deadlines, without dozens of levels of settings, without the feeling that you need to run an entire analytics department for one small site.

google analytics, especially the current google analytics 4, is definitely a strong product. it is needed by large teams, advertising offices, complex events, e-commerce, integrations and enterprise processes. but precisely because of this, for many site owners, it looks too big, too abstract and not always obvious. often the user opens the interface and sees not an answer, but even more questions.

the main difference

webmetr begins with the question: what does the site owner need to see today? google analytics often starts with the question: what model of events, channels, audiences, conversions and attribution do you want to build?

ease of installation

in webmetr, the user adds a domain, selects the counter view and receives the html code. this code can be inserted before the closing body tag. after that, each page view sends a hit to the statistics, and the site owner sees reports in the panel.

there is no complex event model as a mandatory first step. there is no need to think about how to name the event, what parameters to pass, where to look for this data and whether it was collected correctly. the base statistics of the site should be the base, not a separate project.

old reporting style as an advantage

the old counters were popular not because of nostalgia, but because of clarity. opened the statistics page and see the table. opened another menu item and see the graph. each report has a separate address. you can send the link to another person. you can return to the same page after a week. webmetr specifically moves in this direction.

example of url logic in webmetr:

it doesn't look like a fancy dashboard with many layers, but that's the point. site statistics should look like site statistics, not corporate reporting builder.

google analytics is strong, but often too enterprise

the problem with google analytics is not that it is bad. on the contrary, it is a powerful tool. the problem is that power comes at a price. many concepts are needed by a large business, but not needed by a person who wants to see the traffic of his site today.

if you have a marketing team, product analyst, advertising campaigns, e-commerce and complex funnel reports, google analytics may be the right choice. if you want to see daily site statistics without too much noise, webmetr is closer to the task.

that webmetr shows without further explanation

webmetr is built around reports that the site owner understands without documentation. this does not mean that there is no complex technical work inside. on the contrary, highly loaded hit collection, redis-buffer, clickhouse, aggregations, geo, and reports require neat architecture. but the user should not see this complexity.

publicity as a separate idea

in webmetr, statistics can be kept private or made public. for many sites, public statistics are a sign of openness. this is especially important for media, directories, small services, affiliate projects and sites that want to show a real audience.

a separate plus is a visible counter. it does not just collect hits, but gives the site a small public sign: this site has open webmetr statistics. it was normal culture for the old internet. we want to bring this simple idea back in a modern way.

comparison for different types of sites

not everything should be turned into a dashboard

modern tools often try to be universal. they want to cover advertising, product, mobile apps, sites, e-commerce, integrations, audiences, data export, machine learning and many more things. it makes sense for big business. but for a simple site, such versatility turns into noise.

webmetr does the opposite: it narrows down the task. the site has traffic. traffic must be counted. the owner should see the reports. reports should have clear addresses. tables and graphs should correspond to simple words in the menu. if the report is called “countries”, the user should see the countries. if the report is called "pages", the user should see the pages.

practical difference in daily use

honestly about the limitations

webmetr does not attempt to replace all the capabilities of google analytics. if you need complex ad attribution, ecommerce events, deep product funnels, crm integrations, or large bi-processes, you may need other tools. it's normal.

but if the main task is quick site statistics, simple reports, a public counter, clear tables and direct urls, then unnecessary enterprise complexity does not help. it only takes time.

why simplicity does not mean primitiveness

a simple interface does not mean a simple system inside. webmetr collects hits, stores events, aggregates data by date, builds reports, works with high load and has a technical foundation for growth. the difference is that this complexity is not translated to the user.

a correct meter should be like an electric meter: it may have a complex infrastructure, but a person looks at the numbers and understands the result. webmetr is about that.

a short conclusion

webmetr does not compete with google analytics in the number of settings. webmetr competes for clarity. for many sites, clarity is the main value: opened, looked, understood.