How we research and maintain our comparisons
We make a product in this category, so our comparisons deserve scrutiny. This page sets out where the information comes from, how often it is checked, and what we do when we get something wrong.
Every comparison page carries the date it was last verified.
What we use as evidence
Every claim on a comparison page comes from publicly visible product pages, pricing pages, documentation or changelogs, checked on the date shown at the top of that page. If a capability is not documented publicly, we do not assert it either way.
We do not quote private demos, sales calls or conversations with staff, because you cannot verify those. We do not repeat claims from third-party review sites or affiliate listicles, because their incentives are unclear and their information is frequently stale.
Where a competitor's capability is genuinely ambiguous, we mark it partial rather than guessing in either direction. A partial marking usually means the capability exists on a higher tier, requires a paid add-on or extension, or is documented in a way that leaves the scope unclear.
Rules every comparison page follows
Always included
- A section naming where the competitor is the better choice
- The date the information was last verified
- Who each product genuinely suits best
- Partial markings rather than false binaries
- A neutral summary before any argument
Never done
- Claims we cannot trace to a public source
- Pricing quoted without the tier it applies to
- Screenshots of competitor products used out of context
- Comparisons where we omit an area we lose on
- Feature tables that mark a capability absent when it exists on another tier
Review cadence
- Every comparison re-checked at least quarterly
- Pricing re-checked whenever a competitor announces a change
- Pages updated within five working days of a verified correction
- Review date updated on the page itself, not silently
- Substantive changes noted in the changelog
Why every comparison concedes something
Each of our comparison pages contains a section explaining where the other product is the better choice. That is not modesty for its own sake, and it is not a rhetorical device.
A comparison with no concessions is marketing dressed as research, and buyers recognise it immediately. More practically, a customer who switches to us for the wrong reasons churns, complains, and costs more than the sale was worth. We would rather lose a deal to WP Umbrella on maintenance-only requirements than win it and spend six months disappointing someone.
The concession sections are written to be genuinely useful. If you read one and conclude the competitor is right for you, the page has done its job.
If we have something wrong
Competitor products change constantly and we will sometimes be out of date or simply mistaken.
Tell us what and where
Email the page URL and the specific claim. A link to the public source that contradicts it makes verification immediate.
We verify independently
We check the public source ourselves rather than taking the correction on trust, in either direction. This applies equally to corrections from competitors and from customers.
We correct within five working days
Including when the correction favours the competitor, and including when it weakens our own argument. The review date on the page updates at the same time.
Substantive changes are logged
Material corrections appear in the changelog rather than being made silently, so the edit history is visible.
Questions about our research
Partly you should not, and you should read them knowing our interest. What we can offer is verifiability: every claim traces to a public source you can check yourself, every page carries a review date, and every page names where the competitor wins. For comparisons with no vendor involvement at all, we also publish neutral pages where WPCentrify is not one of the products compared.
At least quarterly, and immediately when a competitor announces a pricing or packaging change we become aware of. The date at the top of each page is the last verification date, not the publication date.
No. We use publicly available information so that anyone can verify what we have written. We do respond to corrections from competitors on the same terms as anyone else.
Because a yes or no would be inaccurate. Partial usually means the capability exists but only on a higher tier, only via a paid add-on or extension, or in a form narrower than the plain word implies. Marking those as absent would be misleading in our favour.
Found something wrong?
Tell us the page and the claim. We correct verified errors within five working days, including when it helps a competitor.
Corrections are made publicly, with the review date updated.