How we research and rank tools

Every page on this site is written the same way: desk research, a short shortlist, and a clear split between what a tool is good at and where it will annoy you.

What we look at

• Vendor documentation and feature pages — what the product actually does, and which plan the feature sits behind.
• Public pricing pages — the listed tiers and, more importantly, where the free or entry tier stops being useful.
• Limits and gotchas — contact limits, sending limits, transaction fees, seat limits, export restrictions, and anything that forces an upgrade.
• Ecosystem fit — whether the tool plays nicely with the stack a small team already has.

What we do not do

• We do not claim hands-on testing if we have not done it. You will never read "we tested" here.
• We do not publish invented prices, ratings, review counts, statistics or dates.
• We do not sell placement, and we do not accept payment for a higher position in a list.
• We do not pad pages to hit a word count. Short and useful beats long and vague.

How picks are ordered

Order follows fit for the question on the page — entry cost, time to first result, and how much the tool assumes you already know. If two tools are close, we say so rather than inventing a winner. Commission rate is not an input.

Freshness and corrections

Each page carries a "Reviewed" date. We re-check pages when a vendor changes pricing or a feature we relied on. If you find an error, report it via the contact page; corrections are applied to the live page and the reviewed date is bumped.

Questions we cannot answer

We can explain how the options compare. We cannot give legal, tax or financial advice, and we cannot recommend a plan that depends on numbers only you can see (your list size, your margins, your volume).