Methodology
Most comparison sites rank by whoever pays most and describe it as editorial judgement. Here is exactly how this one works, so you can decide whether to believe it.
How ranking works
Each tool carries a score from 1 to 5 on a set of capability dimensions. Each use case declares weights over those dimensions — what actually matters for that job. The ranking is the weighted sum, normalised to a score out of 100.
That is the whole algorithm. It is deliberately simple enough to check, and every use-case page includes an expandable table showing each tool's raw score on each dimension alongside the weight applied. If you disagree with our weighting, the numbers are there to reweight yourself.
The dimensions
| Dimension | What it measures |
|---|---|
| free plan | freeTier |
| ease of use | easeOfUse |
| breadth of features | allInOne |
| value for money | value |
| email deliverability | deliverability |
| automation | automation |
| selling products | sellsProducts |
| course hosting | courses |
| support | support |
| performance | performance |
| staging environments | staging |
| multi-site management | multiSite |
| scalability | scalability |
| keyword research | keywordResearch |
| backlink data | backlinks |
| rank tracking | rankTracking |
| site audits | siteAudit |
| AI-search tracking | aiVisibility |
| community features | community |
| built-in email | builtInEmail |
| low transaction fees | noTransactionFees |
| paid subscriptions | paidSubscriptions |
| audience growth tools | growthTools |
| publication website | website |
Commission is not an input
This is the claim that matters, so here is the falsifiable version: the ranking function takes a tool's capability scores and a set of weights. It has no access to commission data. A tool paying 60% recurring and a tool paying nothing are scored by identical code.
The test of that claim is simple — if commission drove the order, the highest-paying tool would win every use case. It does not. The use-case pages state explicitly when their top pick differs from the overall winner.
How pricing is verified
Every price, plan limit and commission rate on this site is stored with a source URL and the date it was checked. Both are displayed. The build fails if a figure is added without them — this is enforced in code, not by good intentions.
Anything not re-checked within 120 days is automatically flagged as stale on the page itself. We would rather show you that a figure is old than let you assume it is current.
What we do not do
- We do not accept payment for placement or for a better score.
- We do not remove a tool's limitations because it pays well.
- We do not quote prices without linking where they came from.
- We do not include a tool we cannot describe an honest downside for.
Limitations of this approach
Capability scores are judgements. Reasonable people would score some of these differently, and a 4 versus a 3 on a single dimension is not a precise measurement. What the method guarantees is consistency and visibility — the same scores are applied everywhere, and you can see all of them.
Where a tool has not been assessed on a weighted dimension it scores 3, not 0. Absence of data is not evidence of failure, and scoring it zero would silently bury tools we simply have not examined on that axis.
Common questions
Does commission affect your rankings?
No. Rankings are computed from weighted capability scores. Commission rate is not one of the scoring inputs — it is not present in the ranking code at all. The scoring table is shown on every use-case page so the arithmetic can be checked.
How do you make money?
Affiliate commission when a reader clicks through and subscribes. This is disclosed on every page carrying such a link, and the link is marked rel="sponsored".
How current is the pricing?
Every price carries the date it was checked, shown on the page. Anything older than 120 days is flagged automatically as stale rather than quietly left to rot.
Currently covering 19 tools across 5 categories.