Pico vs Track160
Pico vs Track160, compared side by side on 18 data points: what each one does, how big it is, what it has raised, the tech running each site, and what users report. We score both out of 100 on traction, team and visibility: Pico is on 42/100 and Track160 on 52/100.
Where each one leads
Pico
- domain rating: 33/100 against 29/100
Track160
- our overall score: 52/100 against 42/100
- headcount: 34 against 11
- funding raised: $5.0M against $4.0M
- LinkedIn following: 3,875 against 1,653
At a glance
| Measure | Pico | Track160 |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Pico helps companies boost brand awareness and fan engagement by leveraging user-generated content from social media. | Automated FIFA EPTS certified football data analytics platform for clubs and leagues. |
| Category | Sports, Fan Engagement, Chatbot, Sports Tech | Sports, Analytics, Video, Data |
| Sells toBusiness model | B2B | B2B |
| Offering | Software | Software |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Tel Aviv, Israel | Tel Aviv, Israel |
| Status | Active | Active |
Size, funding and growth
| Measure | Pico | Track160 |
|---|---|---|
| Employees | 11 | 34 |
| Headcount growthLast 12 months | Not published | -29.6% |
| Total funding | $4.0M | $5.0M |
| Latest round | Series A | Series A |
| LinkedIn followers | 1,653 | 3,875 |
StartupHub scores
Our own 0-100 ratings. They measure company strength and site quality, not which product suits you.
| Measure | Pico | Track160 |
|---|---|---|
| StartupHub scoreOur 0-100 rating | 42/100 | 52/100 |
| Traction | 44/100 | 49/100 |
| Team | 30/100 | 60/100 |
| Search visibility | 27/100 | 30/100 |
| Quality | 45/100 | 58/100 |
| Agent readinessHow well an AI agent can read and act on the site | F (21/100) | F (21/100) |
| Domain ratingLink authority, 0-100 | 33/100 | 29/100 |
Technology
Detected on each public site, so it reflects the marketing stack as well as the product.
| Measure | Pico | Track160 |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Google Cloud | Not detected |
Pico vs Track160: common questions
Which is better, Pico or Track160?
On our 0-100 score Track160 rates higher (52/100 against 42/100). The score weights traction, team, visibility and profile completeness, so it reflects company strength rather than which product suits you. We compare the two on 18 data points above: read the rows that match what you are buying for.
How do Pico and Track160 compare on the numbers?
Pico leads on domain rating (33/100 against 29/100). Track160 leads on our overall score (52/100 against 42/100), headcount (34 against 11), funding raised ($5.0M against $4.0M), LinkedIn following (3,875 against 1,653).
Read the full Pico review and pricing or the Track160 review and pricing. You can also browse other Pico alternatives we track.