How we make money, and what it cannot buy.

A review site that recommends things and takes money from the things it recommends has an obvious problem. Ours is not solved by a sentence in a footer, so this page sets out exactly where our money comes from, what it changes, and what it does not.

Nothing on this site is currently a paid placement, and there are no affiliate links. Every entry on every published ranking is there because it was assessed, and not one of them has paid us anything. Each ranking states its own count above its list, counted from the entries themselves rather than typed in by hand, so a page cannot claim to be free of paid placements while carrying one.

That will change. We intend to earn money from affiliate links and from paid consideration, and both are described below so that the rules are published before the money arrives rather than after. When a page carries either, it will say so on the page, at the entry, not only here.

Where money is involved, it is labelled at the point you see the link, not in a footnote at the bottom of the page.

Partner. The company paid to be considered for this list. It did not pay for its position, and its position was decided the same way every other entry’s was.

Affiliate link. We may be paid a commission if you sign up through that link. The commission does not vary with how favourably we wrote about the product, and no entry’s placement depends on whether an affiliate programme exists.

No label. Nobody paid anything. This is the case for everything on the site as it stands.

It can buy a place in the queue. Paid consideration means a company pays to be assessed sooner than it otherwise would be. That is the whole of what it buys.

It cannot buy a position. Placements are decided against published criteria, applied the same way to entries that paid and entries that did not.

It cannot buy a favourable verdict. A paid assessment publishes whatever it finds, including a low placement or a critical review. A company that would rather not be written about should not pay to be written about.

It cannot buy the removal of a limitation. Every entry carries an honest limitation, and paying does not remove it. The field is required on every entry, so an entry without one cannot be published at all.

It cannot buy a competitor’s exclusion. Who appears on a list is decided before anyone is invited to pay for anything.

It cannot buy a quiet removal. Once something is published, it stays published. A correction changes what is wrong; it does not delete a finding somebody dislikes.

We are paying customers of some of the products we write about. We run this site on several of them.

We do not treat that as a conflict, and here is the reasoning. A conflict of interest runs in the direction the money flows. A company paying us has bought something from us and that needs declaring. Us paying a company means we are its customer, like any other reader, and being a customer is the only way to find out what a product is actually like after the demo.

Where we have genuinely used a tool, its review carries a signed, dated first-hand account saying what we used it for, for how long, and what happened. Where we have not, the review says that too. Every review states its testing depth, and that label is set by whether the account exists rather than chosen by the writer.

Prices change, products get discontinued, and features move between tiers. Every price we publish carries the date it was checked, and every page carries the date it was last revised.

If something here is inaccurate, tell us and we will fix it, whether or not you are the company concerned. Corrections that change a finding are made on the page rather than quietly. Write to rajat@saasinsight.io.

For how placements are actually decided, see our methodology.