All You Can ET
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 105 keywords for All You Can ET in Google Play
All You Can ET tracks 105 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 105 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 71.4, difficulty 43.1.
Brain training made fun
Tracked keywords
105
0 ranked • 105 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
71.4
Top keyword: refer
Avg difficulty
43.1
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 63.7
refer
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 39.6 • Rank —
Competitors: 329
- 64.4
collaboration
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 44.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 281
- 64.5
flexibility
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 454
- 61.8
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Rank —
Competitors: 67
- 66.1
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.0 • Rank —
Competitors: 169
Unranked opportunities
refer
Opportunity: 75.0 • Difficulty: 39.6 • Competitors: 329
collaboration
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 44.8 • Competitors: 281
flexibility
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.5 • Competitors: 454
institute
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 37.3 • Competitors: 67
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 41.0 • Competitors: 169
High competition keywords
new
Total apps: 368,615 • Major competitors: 21,394
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 59.8
designed
Total apps: 260,792 • Major competitors: 7,534
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.9
way
Total apps: 206,183 • Major competitors: 10,433
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.5
create
Total apps: 201,758 • Major competitors: 13,287
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 61.5
view
Total apps: 183,848 • Major competitors: 5,710
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.6
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| brain training | 73 | 100 | 39 | 57 4,053 competing apps Median installs: 2,304 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 297 major competitor apps |
| fun | 67 | 100 | 59 | 83 168,996 competing apps Median installs: 5,274 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 14,186 major competitor apps |
| new | 65 | 100 | 60 | 89 368,615 competing apps Median installs: 2,539 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 21,394 major competitor apps |
| collaboration | 74 | 100 | 45 | 64 11,030 competing apps Median installs: 508 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 281 major competitor apps |
| right | 67 | 100 | 58 | 83 159,342 competing apps Median installs: 1,586 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 8,092 major competitor apps |
| support | 67 | 100 | 55 | 83 171,021 competing apps Median installs: 1,243 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 7,328 major competitor apps |
| digital | 68 | 100 | 52 | 81 124,568 competing apps Median installs: 779 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 4,267 major competitor apps |
| flexibility | 74 | 100 | 41 | 65 11,263 competing apps Median installs: 832 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 454 major competitor apps |
| designed | 66 | 100 | 54 | 86 260,792 competing apps Median installs: 721 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 7,534 major competitor apps |
| institute | 74 | 100 | 37 | 62 7,578 competing apps Median installs: 501 Avg rating: 1.6 | — | — | 67 major competitor apps |
| created | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 55,781 competing apps Median installs: 1,588 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 1,986 major competitor apps |
| people | 68 | 100 | 55 | 80 103,575 competing apps Median installs: 2,224 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 5,286 major competitor apps |
| way | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 206,183 competing apps Median installs: 1,630 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 10,433 major competitor apps |
| age | 73 | 100 | 46 | 68 19,885 competing apps Median installs: 3,888 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 1,340 major competitor apps |
| food | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 73,629 competing apps Median installs: 344 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 2,157 major competitor apps |
| university | 74 | 100 | 41 | 66 14,158 competing apps Median installs: 1,522 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 169 major competitor apps |
| among | 71 | 100 | 47 | 73 36,935 competing apps Median installs: 2,131 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 1,767 major competitor apps |
| monitor | 69 | 100 | 47 | 77 64,071 competing apps Median installs: 519 Avg rating: 1.8 | — | — | 1,644 major competitor apps |
| effective | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 37,727 competing apps Median installs: 921 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 1,139 major competitor apps |
| smart | 68 | 100 | 56 | 81 122,441 competing apps Median installs: 1,411 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 5,927 major competitor apps |
| achievement | 73 | 100 | 38 | 58 4,507 competing apps Median installs: 1,230 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 194 major competitor apps |
| create | 66 | 100 | 62 | 84 201,758 competing apps Median installs: 2,495 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 13,287 major competitor apps |
| view | 66 | 100 | 56 | 84 183,848 competing apps Median installs: 786 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 5,710 major competitor apps |
| related | 70 | 100 | 49 | 76 57,481 competing apps Median installs: 1,487 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 1,781 major competitor apps |
| plan | 69 | 100 | 53 | 77 66,978 competing apps Median installs: 1,278 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 3,093 major competitor apps |
App Description
Brain training made fun
Players need to apply frequently changing rules to give differently colored aliens the right food or drink they need to survive.
How does this support learning?
Executive functions refer to a set of top-down, goal-oriented cognitive processes that enable people to control, monitor and plan behaviors and emotions. Miyake and Friedman’s model supports a unity-and-diversity view of EF in that it incorporates the three distinct but related components of EF: inhibitory control, task-switching and updating (Miyake et al., 2000).
What is the research evidence?
Our research suggests that All you Can ET is an effective way to train Cognitive flexibility. Homer, B.D., Plass, J.L., Rose, M.C., MacNamara, A.*, Pawar, S.*, & Ober, T.M. (2019). Activating Adolescents’ “Hot” Executive Functions in a Digital Game to Train Cognitive Skills: The Effects of Age and Prior Abilities. Cognitive Development, 49, 20-32.
Research has found that EF is related to performance in literacy and math along with long-term gains in school performance and academic readiness (Blair & Razza, 2007; Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, & Nelson, 2010) and that disparities in EF among preschool children from low-income versus high-income homes may contribute to the achievement gap (Blair & Razza, 2007; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007).
This game is part of the Smart Suite, created by New York University’s CREATE lab in collaboration with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and The Graduate Center, CUNY.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A150417 to the University of California, Santa Barbara. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.