Publication standard
Editorial independence
Every reviewed service is assessed with the same evidence standard and the same comparison fields. Brand claims remain separate from our interpretation, and unknown facts stay visibly unresolved. Creation buttons do not influence the comparison. AI-generated media illustrates workflows and is never presented as product output.
Separating coverage from monetization
Some outbound "Generate" links on this site are affiliate or referral links, meaning we may receive compensation if a reader signs up with a linked vendor. That arrangement does not determine which vendors are covered, how they are scored on the comparison fields described in Methodology, or whether a vendor's negative finding gets published. A service is included because it fits the comparison's scope, not because it pays for placement.
No pay-for-placement
We do not accept payment in exchange for a specific ranking position, a more favorable writeup, or the removal of an accurate but unflattering fact. A vendor may request a correction to a factual error the same way any reader can — see Contact — and corrections are evaluated on the evidence, not on the requester.
Handling uncertainty
When a vendor's public pages do not state something clearly — a limit, a policy detail, a regional restriction — this site marks that field as unconfirmed rather than guessing in either direction. An unconfirmed field is not scored as a negative against the vendor.
Corrections and updates
When a factual error is identified, whether by a reader, a vendor, or our own re-check, the affected page is updated and the review date shown in that page's footer is refreshed. We do not silently alter a published comparison result without updating that date.