Editorial Policy & Disclosure

SchedPilot is our own product, and it appears at number two in every comparison on this site as a matter of policy, not because it earned that position in a test.

So its position carries no information. Nothing was raced and nothing was scored. Number two was decided before any tool on any of these lists was looked at. Read the entry, not the rank.

Every SchedPilot entry on this site names a real drawback, for exactly that reason. The rank is fixed, so the only part of the entry that can tell you anything is the detail: what it connects to, what it meters, what it has no answer for. If the detail is honest the page is worth your time. If it is not, the fixed rank makes the page worse than useless.

We make money when you buy SchedPilot. That is the arrangement. This is the site’s editorial policy and disclosure, and it exists so you can discount the rest of the site by the right amount rather than guessing.

Which tools get on a list, and which do not

The method that decides which pages exist here is written down in full. Each candidate topic is scored on five axes: demand, how beatable the current top results are, whether SchedPilot fits the topic honestly, whether the topic is load-bearing for covering the subject at all, and whether its intent is distinct from every other page on the site. One page per intent, so no two pages compete.

Note the third axis. Business fit is one of the five, which means a topic that suits our product is more likely to get a page than one that does not. That shapes which comparisons exist here, and it is worth knowing before you read one.

The demand side of that scoring is directional, judged from looking at live results, not measured. This site holds no keyword volume or difficulty data, and the method records that rather than printing numbers it does not have.

A tool qualifies for a list when its current prices and its feature claims can be read on its own pages and its own documentation, in the month the page is written. What disqualifies a claim is simpler than what qualifies one. A feature we could not find documented is cut, not softened into a maybe. A tool we cannot state one real drawback for does not ship at all: an entry with no honest drawback is an outright failure in review, and that rule has no exception for our own product.

The limit, plainly. Nobody here bought a stack of subscriptions and ran them for a month. The lists are built from prices read on the vendor’s own page and features read in the vendor’s own documentation, plus one scheduling API called directly, which is ours. That is not a test. This site does not rank tools on the quality of what they produce.

Why there are no links on this site

There are no outbound links anywhere here. Not on this page, not in a comparison, not in a footnote. It is a rule set at the start of the site, and it is neither an oversight nor a legal hedge.

What happens instead: tools, platforms and documents are named in plain text and in full, so you can search the exact name. Where a page’s argument depends on what a vendor’s own page says, the page carries a screenshot of it where one could be captured. Lists use on-page anchors, so the short version at the top jumps down to the entry rather than off the site.

The absence of a link is not the absence of a source. Every price and every claim is recorded with the URL it came from and the date it was read, and that record is what a later writer checks an earlier one against.

What the rule costs you is the click. You cannot check us in one tap, so you are trusting our reading of a page you would otherwise have opened yourself. That cost falls on you, not on us.

Where the facts come from

First-party sources only: the vendor’s own pricing page and the vendor’s own documentation, read on a named date and logged with that date.

Prices carry the month they were read, because prices move. Where a pricing page serves different numbers behind a billing or currency toggle, the entry names the view that was read. Pages that assemble themselves in the browser are read in the browser, because a fetch that returned nothing is not a check.

Where a vendor’s own pages disagree with each other, the page reports the disagreement instead of picking whichever number suits us. Where one of them has to govern, it is the pricing page, because that is the page that bills you.

And the part that is easiest to leave out of a page like this. A vendor’s own documentation is the vendor’s claim about itself. It is not an independent measurement. A documented limit is a published intention, read on a date. We can tell you what a company says it does. What it will do for you is a different question, and this site does not answer it.

What this site does not claim

• No analytics or performance figures for any tool. We also will not tell you that such figures are unavailable, because asserting an absence is the same error as asserting a number: both are claims about data nobody here inspected.
• No claim that one tool produces better output than another. We have not measured that and we do not rank it.
• No ratios, benchmarks, time savings or productivity multiples that we did not measure ourselves. Where a figure is our own measurement it says so, names the thing it was measured from, and shows its units, so you can count them again and get our number or a better one.
• No price for any tool unless it was read off that vendor’s own page in the month printed beside it.

A number nobody measured reads exactly like a number somebody did, and on a site with no outbound links you have no way to tell the two apart.

Telling us we are wrong

Corrections go to hello@automationsocialmedia.com, the address on our contact page. Comments are off on every page, so email is the route.

What a correction needs: the page, the sentence, and the vendor page that contradicts it. The sentence then gets re-read against that page rather than defended, and a claim that changes carries the date it changed.

If you take one thing from this page: the rank we give our own product was set by us, and the drawback printed underneath it is the part that was checked.