This month, Instagram users in the U.S. spent nearly as much time in the Android app as Facebook users spent on their app, according to new data from online measurement company SimilarWeb.
On average, Instagram users spent 53 minutes per day with the Android app in June — just five minutes less than Facebook users spent with their app. Snapchat users spent 49.5 minutes in the Snap app, on average.
Facebook, which bought Instagram in 2012, has seen growth in time spent on its flagship app stall. If that stagnation continues, Facebook will have to increasingly rely on Instagram for growth among individual users.
Back in 2017, Snapchat had a slight lead on Instagram as far as time spent, but Instagram has since pulled ahead. All three have seen growth in average engagement since then.
Time spent matters because more time in the app means people probably see more advertisements, which is how all these apps make money. The big war on mobile devices right now is for user attention. These apps, plus more traditional media companies like Disney and Netflix, are all looking to capture attention in an increasingly competitive landscape.
What makes that competition interesting is that some companies (think Apple and Facebook) are also starting to come around to the idea that there should be limits — or at the very least, more information — about how much time people spend using their products. Apple recently announced new features inside its latest iOS that will show people how much time they spend using certain apps. Facebook and Instagram have said they want to do the same.
SimilarWeb’s numbers, which only include Android data, are similar to those previously put out by the companies themselves. Instagram and Snapchat haven’t released this type of data since last year.
As for Snapchat’s jump in time spent in October, it could have something to do with the introduction of its 3D World Lenses, but we don’t know.
SimilarWeb collects data through a global panel, ISP data, public data sources and direct measurement data.
This article originally appeared on Recode.net.