Methodology

Editorial priority

We write about software we've used or know about. We write about software where we think we can add value by bringing a unique perspective. Above all, we strive to be opinionated and share insights from novel sources such as interviews, trials and testing. Our goal is to help operators improve decision quality and conviction in picking the tools they choose to build with.

Refresh cadence

Every audit ships with a visible last-audited and next-refresh date. We refresh published audits at most quarterly and at least annually, plus event-driven refreshes when material vendor or regulatory changes occur.

Conflicts of interest

We do not monetize in a way that compromises editorial integrity. If we become aware of a conflict of interest with a category we have audited, we disclose it in line within the audit.

Corrections

Factual errors are corrected with an inline note, a date, and a summary entry on the corrections page.

Source typology

• Primary — vendor-issued material we have read in full, dated, and cited.
• Public filing — SEC filings, S-1s, audit-firm public reports, AICPA documents, regulator publications.
• Review — third-party review platforms cited in aggregate with individuals anonymized.
• News — reporting in publications with a public corrections policy.
• Forum — public discussion forums cited in aggregate with individuals anonymized.
• Vendor — vendor-published marketing or product material, always attributed to the vendor.