Latka logo

JasonDB vs Virtualmin: Revenue, Funding & Team Size Compared

JasonDB generates $614.6K in revenue; Virtualmin generates $629.3K. Virtualmin and JasonDB are close to the same size by revenue. The table below compares JasonDB and Virtualmin on funding, valuation, customers, team size and headquarters — every figure GetLatka has verified for each company.

JasonDB vs Virtualmin compared on revenue, funding, valuation, customers and team size
CompanyJasonDB logoJasonDBThis companyVirtualmin logoVirtualmin
Revenue$614.6K$629.3K
ValuationNot disclosed$4.4M
CustomersNot disclosed150K
Team size143
Founded20082007
HQMelbourne, AustraliaMountain View, United States

Want the full dataset? GetLatka tracks revenue, funding and team history for thousands of SaaS companies, with charts, growth rates and founder interviews.

JasonDB logo

JasonDB at a glance

JasonDB generates $614.6K in revenue with 14 employees, headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.

Revenue
$614.6K
Team size
14
Founded
2008

Developer of a cloud-based database platform. The company develops a digital platform that offers data management services for image and mobile development.

Virtualmin logo

Virtualmin at a glance

Virtualmin generates $629.3K in revenue with 3 employees, headquartered in Mountain View, United States.

Revenue
$629.3K
Valuation
$4.4M
Customers
150K
Team size
3
Founded
2007

Virtualmin is a web hosting control panel for Linux and Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) systems.

Other JasonDB alternatives

JasonDB competes with more than the companies on this page. Browse the full alternative lists to compare revenue, funding and team size across the category.

JasonDB vs Virtualmin: frequently asked questions

Is JasonDB or Virtualmin bigger?

Virtualmin is the bigger company by revenue, at $629.3K against $614.6K for JasonDB.

How much revenue does JasonDB make?

JasonDB generates $614.6K in annual revenue with a team of 14.

How much revenue does Virtualmin make?

Virtualmin generates $629.3K in annual revenue with a team of 3.