Editorial policy.
How we keep revenue relationships, vendor briefings, and AI-assisted drafting from influencing what a ranking or review actually says.
How this differs from our methodology
Our methodology page explains how a tool earns a score: the four weighted pillars, the research process, and how a ranking gets built. This page explains something narrower: the rules that keep that scoring process independent of how we make money, who we talk to, and what tools we use to draft content.
Revenue and editorial independence
This site earns revenue primarily through affiliate links, disclosed in full in our terms of service: if you sign up for a product after clicking a link on this site, we may earn a commission. That relationship never determines a score. Scores are set against the published rubric in our methodology, and a vendor that pays no affiliate commission at all is scored on identical criteria to one that does. Researchers who hold equity in a covered vendor are recused from scoring that vendor's category.
Vendor briefings and fact-checking
Vendors are given the opportunity to review a draft before publication for factual accuracy, pricing, feature availability, integration depth, and similar verifiable details. A vendor can correct a factual error through this process. A vendor cannot negotiate a higher score, request a caution be removed, or see or influence the rubric before it is applied. If a vendor disagrees with a score or caution after publication, we address it by re-testing the product, not by adjusting the number to match the disagreement.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, factual errors are corrected as soon as they are verified, and a note is added to the affected page describing what changed. Anyone, vendor or reader, can request a correction by emailing us with the page URL, the specific claim in question, and a source we can check it against; see our contact page for details. Correction requests are prioritized ahead of general inquiries.
Use of AI in research and writing
We use AI tools for aggregation and drafting support during research and writing. AI-assisted drafts are not treated as a source of factual claims: every statistic, pricing figure, and factual assertion in a published page traces back to hands-on testing, a practitioner interview, or a primary document such as a vendor's own pricing page or a public filing. A human researcher reviews and signs off on every published score and every factual claim before it goes live.
How we handle unverifiable claims
If a vendor claim, a statistic, or a comparison cannot be independently verified against a primary source, we do not publish it, regardless of how favorable or unfavorable it would be to the vendor in question. This applies equally to positive claims a vendor wants included and to negative claims from a competitor or a disgruntled user; unverified is unverified.
Sponsored content
If the site ever publishes sponsored content, it will be clearly labeled as sponsored at the top of the page, and it will not appear inside a ranking or affect a ranking's scores. As of the effective date below, no sponsored content has been published on this site.
Questions or concerns
If you believe a piece of content on this site was influenced by a revenue relationship rather than the rubric described in our methodology, email us at contact@marketintelligencetools.com with specifics. We take that concern seriously and will review the page in question.
Effective July 12, 2026.