Editorial policy
Last updated 19 August 2026
The standard every page is held to: if it does not make a buying decision clearer, it gets improved, merged into a better page, or removed. Volume is not a goal here — a large number of pages were deleted rather than kept for the sake of the count.
What each type of page must do
| Page type | It must answer | It fails if |
|---|---|---|
| Alternatives | Why people leave this tool, and which replacement fits which reason | It is a list of products with no switching trigger attached |
| Review | Who should buy it, and who should specifically avoid it | It has no clear “do not buy this if…” |
| VS comparison | Whether the two are genuinely comparable, or only adjacent | It pretends two different categories of tool are rivals |
| “Can AI replace X” | What the assistant genuinely takes over, and what it does not | It only argues one side |
| Tool / calculator | Give a specific answer, then link to the guide behind it | It returns a generic hub page |
Standing rules
- State the weaknesses. A page with no downside section is not finished.
- Never claim verified user-review data, hands-on testing, or vendor access that we do not have.
- Price claims carry the date they were checked, and the vendor is named as the authority.
- Commercial pages link to the free and cheap options where those genuinely apply.
- Recommendations are not sold. See how we make money.
Who writes this
BetterThan.tools is a small independent publisher, not a vendor, reseller or agency. Pages are written from hands-on use of the tools where we have it, and from public product documentation, pricing pages and vendor changelogs where we do not — and pages say which is which rather than blurring the two. Where a claim rests on documentation rather than direct use, the page does not dress it up as testing.
Related
- Methodology How comparisons are actually built.
- Corrections policy How mistakes get fixed.
- Update policy When pages get revisited.