How we evaluate tools
Evaluation methods vary by article. Feature-based overviews and researched comparisons are not independent hands-on tests. A hands-on claim should be supported by the tasks performed, product version or plan, date, results, and limitations. Product descriptions and vendor claims should not be presented as our own measured results.
How reviews and comparisons are created
- Articles are manually reviewed before publication. This is not a claim that all drafting is human-only or that every tool has been tested.
- Comparisons should identify their sources and distinguish researched features from measured results. Claims of comparative testing need documented equivalent tasks and conditions.
- Articles list a published date and an updated date. Material changes get a visible update.
- Official documentation, pricing pages, and changelogs should support factual product claims; readers should check current details before purchasing.
Affiliate relationships
Where a commercial affiliate relationship applies, the article should explain it near the relevant recommendation and before the link. Ordinary product links do not establish an affiliate relationship. A commission can create a financial incentive; readers should consider any disclosed relationship when evaluating a recommendation. Full details are on the affiliate disclosure page.
Sponsored content and free access
Paid sponsorship, vendor-provided access, or vendor involvement in an article should be explicitly disclosed when applicable. A sponsored article should be clearly labeled near the top. Neither a review nor a product link alone establishes sponsorship.
Corrections
Mistakes get fixed in the article with the updated date refreshed. Report them via the contact page.