Arkikus - Flaviobriga
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 74 keywords for Arkikus - Flaviobriga in Google Play
Arkikus - Flaviobriga tracks 74 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 74 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 69.5, difficulty 45.9.
App for the virtual reconstruction of the Roman city of Flaviobriga
Tracked keywords
74
0 ranked • 74 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
69.5
Top keyword: currently
Avg difficulty
45.9
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 68.3
currently
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 50.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 877
- 62.8
town
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 50.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 953
- 64.8
accuracy
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 591
- 68.8
documents
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 71.2 • Rank —
Competitors: 1,198
- 63.6
greatest
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 46.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 718
Unranked opportunities
currently
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 50.8 • Competitors: 877
town
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 50.5 • Competitors: 953
accuracy
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 44.2 • Competitors: 591
documents
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 71.2 • Competitors: 1,198
greatest
Opportunity: 72.0 • Difficulty: 46.9 • Competitors: 718
High competition keywords
experience
Total apps: 118,077 • Major competitors: 15,561
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 62.8
mobile
Total apps: 113,294 • Major competitors: 10,537
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 60.5
information
Total apps: 101,893 • Major competitors: 7,805
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 58.6
designed
Total apps: 96,808 • Major competitors: 9,110
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.6
available
Total apps: 92,463 • Major competitors: 9,952
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 66.4
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| action | 71 | 100 | 64 | 73 19,490 competing apps Median installs: 64,156 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 3,588 major competitor apps |
| experience | 65 | 100 | 63 | 87 118,077 competing apps Median installs: 39,819 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 15,561 major competitor apps |
| digital | 68 | 100 | 55 | 79 42,168 competing apps Median installs: 26,988 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 4,209 major competitor apps |
| information | 66 | 100 | 59 | 86 101,893 competing apps Median installs: 23,675 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 7,805 major competitor apps |
| used | 67 | 100 | 61 | 82 61,233 competing apps Median installs: 32,225 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 5,711 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 96,808 competing apps Median installs: 27,484 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 9,110 major competitor apps |
| content | 68 | 100 | 64 | 81 56,908 competing apps Median installs: 30,274 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 5,627 major competitor apps |
| available | 66 | 100 | 66 | 85 92,463 competing apps Median installs: 34,120 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 9,952 major competitor apps |
| town | 72 | 100 | 51 | 63 4,715 competing apps Median installs: 70,448 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 953 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 60 | 86 113,294 competing apps Median installs: 25,796 Avg rating: 2.8 | — | — | 10,537 major competitor apps |
| virtual | 71 | 100 | 55 | 74 20,442 competing apps Median installs: 54,128 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 3,169 major competitor apps |
| group | 71 | 100 | 63 | 73 19,138 competing apps Median installs: 24,928 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 1,759 major competitor apps |
| city | 70 | 100 | 55 | 76 26,771 competing apps Median installs: 51,496 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 4,390 major competitor apps |
| real | 67 | 100 | 64 | 83 74,834 competing apps Median installs: 53,568 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 11,689 major competitor apps |
| unique experience | 70 | 100 | 36 | 54 1,485 competing apps Median installs: 28,021 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 126 major competitor apps |
| original | 71 | 100 | 58 | 73 18,382 competing apps Median installs: 49,188 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 2,593 major competitor apps |
| immersive | 71 | 100 | 64 | 72 15,658 competing apps Median installs: 53,616 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 2,420 major competitor apps |
| accuracy | 72 | 100 | 44 | 65 6,215 competing apps Median installs: 31,033 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 591 major competitor apps |
| interpretation | 71 | 100 | 36 | 57 2,102 competing apps Median installs: 25,462 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 88 major competitor apps |
| documents | 72 | 100 | 71 | 69 10,646 competing apps Median installs: 29,384 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 1,198 major competitor apps |
| show | 69 | 100 | 60 | 79 39,281 competing apps Median installs: 56,395 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 6,243 major competitor apps |
| unique | 66 | 100 | 61 | 84 81,369 competing apps Median installs: 46,911 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 12,160 major competitor apps |
| future | 70 | 100 | 50 | 74 21,807 competing apps Median installs: 31,554 Avg rating: 2.9 | — | — | 2,133 major competitor apps |
| style | 70 | 100 | 58 | 76 28,620 competing apps Median installs: 53,356 Avg rating: 3.1 | — | — | 4,483 major competitor apps |
| greatest | 72 | 100 | 47 | 64 5,265 competing apps Median installs: 40,835 Avg rating: 3.0 | — | — | 718 major competitor apps |
App Description
App for the virtual reconstruction of the Roman city of Flaviobriga
The virtual reconstruction included in this app aims to show how the Roman city of Flaviobriga, currently preserved in the subsoil of Castro-Urdiales (Cantabria, Spain), may have looked in the past, in an immersive and unique experience that shows 4th century AD architecture and scenes in a realistic way.
All the digital content in the mobile app has been developed based on real graphic, documentary and archaeological sources for the reconstructed spaces. Where such original documents for particular elements are no longer available, parallel architectural and/or decorative examples from the same period of time, region and style have been used to ensure the greatest historical accuracy possible. The reconstructions included show an interpretation of the historical surroundings designed in conjunction with specialists based on the information available when the app was created. Future investigations may subsequently alter these interpretations.
Acknowledgements: Pedro Rasines del Río, Ángel Astorqui