Methodology
How these guides are built, what the research rests on, and — importantly — what they do not claim to be.
What this research is, and is not
These are buyer research guides built 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. They are not verified user-review datasets, and we have no access to private vendor data, internal benchmarks or usage telemetry. Where a claim rests on documentation rather than direct use, the page says so rather than dressing it up as testing.
This matters because plenty of comparison sites imply a level of testing that did not happen. Stating the limit plainly is more useful than a badge claiming otherwise.
How a page gets built
- Start from the decision, not the product. The organising question is always “what is this person trying to decide?” — switch, downgrade, or stay.
- Establish current pricing. Every plan, from the vendor's own pricing page, recorded with the date checked. This is the detail most comparison pages skip, and it is usually the deciding factor.
- Identify the real switching triggers. Price, complexity, a missing capability, team size, or category mismatch. Each leads somewhere different.
- Write the downside section first. If a page has no credible “here is where it frustrates people”, it is not finished.
- Name who should not buy it. Every review carries an explicit “avoid it if”.
- Check the recommendation against the free tier. Where a free option covers the job, that is the recommendation, regardless of what it pays.
What each page type must answer
| Page type | Main question | It fails if |
|---|---|---|
| Alternatives | Why is this buyer switching, and what fits that reason? | It lists products with no switching trigger attached |
| Review | Should you keep paying for this? | It has no clear “do not buy this if…” |
| VS comparison | Which of two realistic options fits better? | It pretends two different categories of tool are rivals |
| Can AI replace X | What does the assistant genuinely take over? | It only argues one side |
| Tool | What is the specific answer for my situation? | It returns a generic hub page |
On pricing accuracy
Pricing is the fastest-moving thing on any software comparison page, and the most damaging when wrong. Every price here carries the month it was checked, and every pricing section names the vendor as the authority. Regional pricing, annual discounts and promotional rates all vary, so the figure you see at checkout may differ from the list price shown.
If you find a stale price, reporting it is genuinely useful — see the corrections policy.
Independence
No vendor has approval over a page before publication. No placement in any ranking or table is for sale. Several tools recommended here run no affiliate programme at all. The funding model, and the bias it creates, is set out in full on how we make money.
- Editorial policy The standard every page is held to.
- Update policy When pages get revisited.
- Corrections policy How errors get fixed.