Additional Info: Relative search volume (not absolute numbers)
Report an error
Google searches for 'whatsapp' correlates with...
Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
Average length of SmarterEveryDay YouTube videos | r=0.98 | 14yrs | No |
Sales of LP/Vinyl Albums | r=0.97 | 13yrs | No |
The Coca-Cola Company's stock price (KO) | r=0.97 | 14yrs | Yes! |
American Express Company's stock price (AXP) | r=0.95 | 14yrs | No |
Garmin's stock price (GRMN) | r=0.94 | 14yrs | No |
Chipotle Mexican Grill's stock price (CMG) | r=0.94 | 14yrs | No |
CRH plc's stock price (CRH) | r=0.9 | 14yrs | Yes! |
Bank of America's stock price (BAC) | r=0.9 | 14yrs | No |
Searches for 'never gonna give you up' | r=0.87 | 14yrs | No |
The number of social workers in New Hampshire | r=0.86 | 13yrs | No |
The number of private detectives in Ohio | r=0.77 | 13yrs | No |
The number of movies Henry Cavill appeared in | r=0.74 | 13yrs | No |
Google searches for 'whatsapp' also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)