Linpack
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 69 keywords for Linpack in Apple App Store
Linpack tracks 69 keywords (9 keywords rank; 60 need traction). Key metrics: 11% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.4, difficulty 37.9, best rank 10.
Tracked keywords
69
9 ranked • 60 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
11%
Best rank 10 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.4
Top keyword: operation
Avg difficulty
37.9
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.8
operation
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 43
- 68.0
task
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 109
- 66.3
seconds
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 129
- 65.0
problem
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 125
- 67.8
second
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 166
Unranked opportunities
operation
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.6 • Competitors: 43
task
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Competitors: 109
seconds
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.8 • Competitors: 129
problem
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.0 • Competitors: 125
second
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.3 • Competitors: 166
High competition keywords
time
Total apps: 190,736 • Major competitors: 2,966
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.3
based
Total apps: 79,669 • Major competitors: 1,056
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.1
check
Total apps: 65,344 • Major competitors: 1,266
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 51.4
much
Total apps: 53,679 • Major competitors: 932
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 49.6
fast
Total apps: 47,599 • Major competitors: 952
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 50.2
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| smooth performance | 68 | 100 | 28 | 41 263 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.3 | 10 | 10 | 5 major competitor apps |
| output | 72 | 100 | 37 | 60 3,797 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | 28 | 28 | 27 major competitor apps |
| algorithms | 72 | 100 | 37 | 61 4,366 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | 87 | 77 | 51 major competitor apps |
| algorithm | 72 | 100 | 38 | 61 4,320 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | 90 | 90 | 51 major competitor apps |
| software | 72 | 100 | 43 | 70 16,282 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 3.9 | 100 | 100 | 169 major competitor apps |
| performance | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 24,352 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.2 | 107 | 105 | 243 major competitor apps |
| stability | 70 | 100 | 33 | 51 1,056 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | 175 | 175 | 14 major competitor apps |
| cpu | 69 | 100 | 29 | 46 578 competing apps Median installs: 700 Avg rating: 4.1 | 187 | 187 | 7 major competitor apps |
| numerical | 70 | 100 | 30 | 50 968 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | 202 | 202 | 6 major competitor apps |
| simply | 69 | 100 | 48 | 78 44,654 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 594 major competitor apps |
| time | 65 | 100 | 55 | 88 190,736 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,966 major competitor apps |
| operation | 73 | 100 | 39 | 64 6,516 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 3.9 | — | — | 43 major competitor apps |
| task | 73 | 100 | 42 | 68 11,628 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 109 major competitor apps |
| test | 69 | 100 | 48 | 77 38,610 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 710 major competitor apps |
| seconds | 73 | 100 | 42 | 66 9,211 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 129 major competitor apps |
| fast | 69 | 100 | 50 | 78 47,599 competing apps Median installs: 700 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 952 major competitor apps |
| problem | 73 | 100 | 40 | 65 7,619 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 125 major competitor apps |
| solve | 72 | 100 | 45 | 71 17,276 competing apps Median installs: 900 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 416 major competitor apps |
| second | 73 | 100 | 42 | 68 11,305 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 166 major competitor apps |
| much | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 53,679 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 932 major competitor apps |
| operations | 73 | 100 | 39 | 64 7,093 competing apps Median installs: 250 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 47 major competitor apps |
| check | 68 | 100 | 51 | 81 65,344 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,266 major competitor apps |
| made | 69 | 100 | 49 | 76 36,340 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 579 major competitor apps |
| bit | 72 | 100 | 40 | 63 5,880 competing apps Median installs: 750 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 102 major competitor apps |
| solution | 70 | 100 | 45 | 74 25,951 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 192 major competitor apps |
App Description
The LINPACK Benchmarks are a measure of a system's floating point computing power. They measure how fast a computer solves a dense N by N system of linear equations Ax = b, which is a common task in engineering. The solution is obtained by Gaussian elimination with partial pivoting, with 2/3·N3 + 2·N2 floating point operations. The result is reported in millions of floating point operations per second (MFLOP/s, sometimes simply called FLOPS).
Results.
Mflop/s:
Millions of floating point operations per second. A floating point operation here is a floating point addition or a floating point multiplication with 64 bit operands. For this problem there are 2/3 n^3 + n^2 floating point operations.
Time:
The time in seconds to solve the problem, Ax=b.
Norm Res:
A check is made to show that the computed solution is correct. The test is based on || Ax - b || / ( || A || || x || eps) where eps is described below. The Norm Res should be about O(1) in size. If this quantity is much larger than 1, the solution is probably incorrect.
Precision:
The relative machine precision usually the smallest positive number such that fl( 1.0 - eps ) < 1.0, where fl denotes the computed value and eps is the relative machine precision.