What the data covers

This article covers restaurants in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The broader summary includes 19,664 analyzed reviews across the full provider analyses, while the topic analysis used for direct platform comparison includes 19,473 reviews. Google Maps contributes 8,690 of those topic reviews and TripAdvisor contributes 10,783. These come from 213 businesses. The total review coverage for the market is 207,641 reviews, with an average restaurant rating of 4.27. The topic analysis spans June 4, 2014 through July 30, 2026. The article only uses this period and only uses the aligned topic review sample.

Evidence

Evidence snapshot

The article uses this Aggregate dataset scope before interpreting review themes.

Google Maps rating distribution
5-star
67.47%
5,895 reviews
4-star
10.09%
882 reviews
3-star
5.85%
511 reviews
2-star
5.15%
450 reviews
1-star
11.43%
999 reviews
TripAdvisor rating distribution
5-star
65.92%
7,203 reviews
4-star
17.5%
1,912 reviews
3-star
7.22%
789 reviews
2-star
4.28%
468 reviews
1-star
5.08%
555 reviews
Locations
213
Published reviews
207,641
Reviews analyzed
19,664
Reviews with ratings
19,664
Average rating
4.27
Review period
February 18, 2008 to July 31, 2026

What reviewers like

Praise appears in both analyzed platform samples for these selected topics.

TripAdvisor is higher across all 5 selected praise topics in these samples. Food consistency is 54.15% on Google Maps and 81.73% on TripAdvisor and service is 43.37% on Google Maps and 66.81% on TripAdvisor. The other selected praise shares are atmosphere (13.71% on Google Maps and 26.61% on TripAdvisor), location (4.13% on Google Maps and 14.60% on TripAdvisor), and wait time (3.83% on Google Maps and 14.11% on TripAdvisor).

For example, a reviewer praised delicious food, a pleasant atmosphere, and a waiter who kept the evening lively and personal.

Where reviews show friction

Service speed appears as a recurring friction in both samples. Service complaints are 9.01% on Google Maps and 9.84% on TripAdvisor. Wait-time complaints are also visible and higher in TripAdvisor reviews: 5.3% on Google Maps versus 7.73% on TripAdvisor. Value complaints are present at similar levels, at 7.42% on Google Maps and 7.45% on TripAdvisor. Cleanliness complaints are low, 0.74% on Google Maps and 0.47% on TripAdvisor. Cleanliness complaint shares are lower than service and value complaint shares in both samples.

For example, a diner described slow and disorganized service, with delays in ordering and no one returning when food was missing.

How Google Maps and TripAdvisor differ

Topic Google Maps TripAdvisor Difference Interpretation
Food consistency (praise share) 54.15% 81.73% 27.58 pp TripAdvisor is higher in these samples.
Service (praise share) 43.37% 66.81% 23.44 pp TripAdvisor is higher in these samples.
Atmosphere (praise share) 13.71% 26.61% 12.90 pp TripAdvisor is higher in these samples.
Location (praise share) 4.13% 14.60% 10.47 pp TripAdvisor is higher in these samples.
Wait time (praise share) 3.83% 14.11% 10.28 pp TripAdvisor is higher in these samples.

Reviews also describe problems with service, atmosphere, and wait time. Praise in the comparison does not mean complaints are absent.

These figures compare unmatched platform samples. They describe the analyzed samples, not a platform effect.

Evidence

Platform comparison

Compare platform-level rating and review volume before treating one channel as the full market.

Average rating
Google Maps
4.19
1,205 average published reviews
Tripadvisor
4.35
755 average published reviews
Google Maps
4.19 rating · 1,205 avg reviews
Tripadvisor
4.35 rating · 755 avg reviews

Where the platforms agree

Topic Google Maps TripAdvisor Difference Interpretation
Value (complaint share) 7.42% 7.45% 0.03 pp The samples differ by 0.03 pp.
Cleanliness (praise share) 1.82% 2.01% 0.19 pp The samples differ by 0.19 pp.

Why this is a snapshot, not a trend

This is a snapshot of one shared review period. The source has no earlier matching period, so this article does not measure change over time.

What operators can compare with their own reviews

The measured sample gaps are food consistency (TripAdvisor higher by 27.58 percentage points), service (TripAdvisor higher by 23.44 percentage points), and atmosphere (TripAdvisor higher by 12.90 percentage points).

The remaining measured sample gaps are location (TripAdvisor higher by 10.47 percentage points) and wait time (TripAdvisor higher by 10.28 percentage points).

Then calculate the same topic shares for the same period on each platform. Check praise and complaints separately for food consistency, service, atmosphere, location, and wait time, and treat these unmatched sample gaps as questions rather than performance targets.

In this source, atmosphere and service appear in both praise and complaint evidence. Compare both sides before interpreting the sample gaps.

Use value complaint (0.03 percentage points) and cleanliness praise (0.19 percentage points) as close-sample references when checking whether platform mix is shaping the comparison.

Limitations

The platform samples use different review and business denominators and do not match businesses one by one. Differences describe the samples, not platform effects.

The topic analysis is smaller than the broader summary, so its percentages do not describe every review in the full coverage.

Methodology and source notes

Topic shares use distinct reviews from the shared review period. Each review has equal weight.