Editorial policy

What we hold ourselves to

A directory is only useful if you can trust the fields. Our standard is simple: record what can be verified, mark what cannot, and never fill a gap with a guess.

Research process

1. Primary sources first. The provider's own website, documentation, and pricing page.
2. Task-based categorisation. A tool is filed under the job it does, not the keyword it targets.
3. Editorial writing. Strengths, limitations, and verdicts are written by an editor. They are assessment, not marketing copy.
4. Verification date. Where we have re-checked pricing and platforms, the listing shows the date. Where we have not, it says so.
5. Publication gate. Only records with the status Published are visible to visitors. Everything else stays in Draft or In Review.

What we do not claim

• We do not claim to have tested every product. "Hands-on" is used only where an editor has actually used the tool for real work.
• We do not publish star ratings, review counts, or "number one" claims we cannot support.
• We do not publish prices we have not verified. A listing showing a pricing model without a figure means the figure has not been confirmed.
• We do not publish revenue, savings, or traffic projections.

Use of AI

AI tools are used for research triage and copy editing. They are not used to invent product claims, fabricate testing, or generate reviews. Articles that were drafted with AI assistance are edited and fact-checked by a human before publication, and factual claims are traced to a source.

Corrections

If a listing is wrong, tell us through the contact form with the page URL and, ideally, a source. Corrections are made to the record itself, so every page that renders it updates at once. Material corrections are reflected in the listing's verification date.

Independence

No payment influences a verdict, a comparison row, or a category placement. Sponsored listings are labelled and separated. See the affiliate disclosure for how links are handled.