Both Fig and Typefully 2.0 are in our Mac index. Both crossed our engagement threshold. Here's how they compare on the numbers that are hard to fake.
Side-by-side comparison of Fig and Typefully 2.0 based on community engagement data.
Autocomplete for the Terminal
Effortlessly publish on Twitter and LinkedIn, now with AI
Both Fig and Typefully 2.0 are in our Mac index. Both crossed our engagement threshold. Here's how they compare on the numbers that are hard to fake.
| Category | Fig | Typefully 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer Tools | Yes | - |
| Mac | Yes | Yes |
| Productivity | Yes | - |
| Social Media | - | Yes |
| - | Yes |
Love the idea and the execution is just 🤯 Now I'm just wondering how I could use a Terminal without it!! Congrats for this amazing product!
Been using this for a while man, love it
Wow I have been begging for something like this to exist for year. This totally changes the game and has saved me hours of checking stack overflow
Hey folks, In the last year, we've been working really hard to take Typefully to the next level. Born as a "Twitter scheduler", Typefully has slowly become the favorite tool of thousands of creators to craft and publish their content. With Typefully 2.0, we're finally announcing the latest significa...
it is great my favourite way to publish content. actually I'm glad the Twitter api changes Don't take you out
Have used Typefully to schedule my Twitter threads and absolutely love how simple and clean interface it has.
Fig leads on raw interest score. Fig leads on engagement ratio. Fig leads on both metrics. That doesn't happen often.
These products share 1 categories: Mac. Moderate overlap suggests they target related but distinct use cases.
Fig is also tagged in Developer Tools, Productivity, which Typefully 2.0 isn't. That suggests Fig positions itself more broadly or targets an adjacent audience.
Typefully 2.0 has unique category tags in Social Media, Twitter. Different positioning can mean a different buyer profile, even within the same space.
Fig launched Jan 2022. Typefully 2.0 launched Jun 2023. Fig has had more time to iterate and build a user base. Typefully 2.0 had the advantage of launching into a more defined market with clearer user expectations.
Fig has a 0.18 engagement ratio (average), based on 170 discussion threads across 936 interest points. Middle of the pack for Mac. Enough discussion to suggest real usage, but not the kind of buzz that indicates a category-defining product.
Typefully 2.0 has a 0.11 engagement ratio (below average), based on 96 discussions across 909 interest points. The low ratio suggests a launch that got attention but didn't convert that attention into sustained interest.
Within the Mac category (519 total products), Fig ranks #3 and Typefully 2.0 ranks #4 by interest score. Fig sits in the top 10 for the category.
Fig is in the top 1% of Mac by interest. Typefully 2.0 is in the top 1%.
Pick Fig if you want the product with the larger community behind it; sustained discussion and active users are your priority; you value stability and a longer track record; you need something that also covers Developer Tools.
Pick Typefully 2.0 if community size matters less to you than engagement depth; you prefer newer tools with fresher tech; you need something that also covers Twitter.
Fig: Fig makes engineers more productive in the terminal. â € Our first product adds visual completions for hundreds of public CLI tools like cd, git, npm/yarn, docker, and aws. â € Want private autocomplete? Create your own completions and share them with your team!
Typefully 2.0: We've worked hard on the new version of Typefully, which is now used by more than 100,000 creators. Rewrite and improve your content with AI. Cross-post to LinkedIn. Become more productive with a Command Bar. Download the Mac app. And much much more...
These products also compete in the Mac category:
SigmaOS 1.0 — The Browser that thinks like you ✨ (Interest: 881, Engagement: 0.40)
Sidekick Browser 2.0 — A productivity browser for becoming focused and unstoppable (Interest: 624, Engagement: 0.42)
DiffSense — Local AI git commit generator for Apple Silicon (Interest: 417, Engagement: 0.14)
Lens — 10x your engagement rate during Zoom meetings (Interest: 320, Engagement: 0.38)
SideNotes — Quick notes on screen edge (Interest: 311, Engagement: 0.11)
DockFlow — Switch between dock presets on MacOS instantly (Interest: 301, Engagement: 0.09)
How directly these products compete. Three or more shared categories means they're going after the same user. One shared category means they approach the space from different angles. Zero overlap and they probably shouldn't be compared.
Comparisons are generated automatically when two products have enough data overlap. If the pair you want isn't here, the products might be in different categories or too far apart in engagement.
Either the product didn't meet our engagement threshold, or it doesn't share enough category tags with the other product to generate a meaningful comparison. We'd rather show no comparison than a misleading one.
Each product's data reflects its launch period. The comparison shows both products' engagement metrics from when they launched. The build date at the bottom of the page shows when the index was last refreshed.
Not yet. Current comparisons use launch-period data only. Post-launch tracking is on our roadmap.
Generally, yes. Engagement ratio is hard to fake. A product can generate artificial interest, but sustained discussion threads require people who actually used the product and had something to say about it.