Editorial policy

Our evaluation framework

We assess software against seven dimensions, and we apply them consistently so that two reviews can be read against each other.

• Features and functionality. What the vendor’s published feature set contains, and which plan each capability sits on.
• Ease of use. Judged from product structure and the number of decisions a common task requires, not from our subjective impression.
• Pricing and value. Compared at equivalent list or seat sizes and equivalent billing periods, with the currency and date of reading stated.
• Automation and workflow capability. Including the ceilings, such as step and workflow caps, rather than only whether a builder exists.
• Integrations and API access. Which integrations exist, and on which plan they unlock.
• Support options. Channels available per plan, and response commitments where the vendor publishes them.
• Suitability. Which kind of business a product fits, stated as a conditional recommendation rather than a general verdict.

Desk research and hands-on testing

We distinguish these two methods explicitly, and every article states which one produced it. Desk research means systematically reading and comparing the vendor’s current pricing pages, help centre articles, terms of service and acceptable use policies. Hands-on testing means creating an account and operating the product, and we label it clearly when we have done it.

We will never describe desk research as hands-on testing, claim to have run campaigns we did not run, or invent a testing period. A review that implies personal experience the writer does not have is the most common form of dishonesty in this category, and it is the one we are most careful about.

Sourcing

We prefer the vendor’s own current documentation to every other source, including well regarded third party reviews, because plan contents change without notice and secondary sources go stale silently. Each review carries a sources list with the specific pages used and the date they were read.

Where two official vendor pages contradict each other, we say so in the article rather than quietly choosing the more convenient figure. Where we cannot verify a claim, we mark it for verification instead of asserting it. We do not cite sources we have not read, and we do not fabricate citations.

Why we publish no scores or badges

We do not award star ratings, numerical scores, or badges such as best overall or editor’s choice. A score implies a measurement precision that our method cannot support, and in practice such badges on affiliate sites correlate with commission rates more often than with product quality. We would rather tell you which product fits which situation, and let you match it to yours.

For the same reason we publish no aggregate rating structured data, since marking up invented scores for search engines would be both misleading and against search engine guidance.

Claims we will not make

• Deliverability comparisons, unless we have run controlled seed list testing and described the method. Any review that declares a deliverability winner without one is guessing.
• Guaranteed outcomes, such as higher conversion rates or revenue, from choosing a given tool.
• That a product lacks a feature when it is merely absent from an entry level plan. We name the plan instead.
• That a platform permits a particular marketing practice. We report what the policy document says and tell you to confirm your own use case with the vendor in writing.
• Fabricated user reviews, testimonials, review counts or performance figures of any kind.

Commercial relationships and editorial independence

TomaCorp earns revenue from affiliate commissions, set out in full in our affiliate disclosure. We do not accept payment for favourable coverage or for placement, and no vendor sees an article before publication.

We do not claim that affiliate compensation has no influence on our editorial decisions, because that claim is unverifiable and revenue plainly influences which products get covered at all. Our safeguards are structural rather than declarative: recommendations are conditional and tied to a stated requirement, affiliate links are labelled at the point of use, factual claims are cited so you can check them, and we recommend against products we are paid to refer wherever they are the wrong fit for the reader.

Updates and corrections

Reviews carry a last updated date. When we change a factual claim after publication we add a dated correction note to the page rather than editing silently, so the record is visible. Pricing sections are the most perishable part of any review, and we recheck them when we revisit an article.

To report an error, use the corrections address on our contact page. Including the page, the sentence and a link to the vendor page showing the correct information gets it fixed fastest. We apply the same verification process whether the report comes from a reader, a competitor or the vendor.

Authorship

Needs completion before publishing Name the people responsible for content here, with real roles, and keep article bylines consistent with those names. Do not invent author credentials, qualifications or years of experience.

Editor responsible for content: [ENTER name and role]
Contributors: [ENTER names, or delete this line]

About us  ·  Contact  ·  Privacy policy  ·  Terms of use  ·  Affiliate disclosure