Editorial Standards

Last updated: May 28, 2026

StackMatch is an editorial publication. Everything published here is bound by the standards on this page. If we ever fall short of these standards, please correct us — contact with what we got wrong and the source. We publish corrections.

Sourcing

Editorial claims on the site are supported by one or more of these source types:

1. Primary vendor sources. Pricing, feature claims, target customer descriptions, and program terms come from vendor websites, demo calls, and partner-portal documentation.
2. Independent review aggregators. We reference Capterra, G2, and Software Advice for review counts and rating distributions. We do not directly quote individual reviews unless we link to the source and the reviewer is publicly identified.
3. Industry community discussion. Reddit threads, Facebook groups, and vertical-specific forums inform our understanding of operator-reported pricing and feature reality. We do not quote anonymous posts as primary evidence.
4. Operator interviews. When we conduct interviews with named operators (with permission), we publish with attribution. We do not publish unattributed "operator says" quotes.
5. Public regulatory filings. For larger vendors, SEC filings and press releases inform our analysis of customer counts and product roadmaps.

Accuracy commitments

• Pricing accuracy. Published prices reflect the vendor's listed rates at the time of the most recent update (shown as "Last updated" on each page). We refresh pricing every quarter at minimum, plus any time we learn of a structural change.
• Feature accuracy. Feature claims reference current vendor documentation. We mark partial or evolving features explicitly ("functional but limited") rather than treating them as binary present/absent.
• Affiliate program accuracy. Affiliate program details come from each vendor's published partner page or our direct application data. Terms revealed only after approval are noted as "private until approved."
• Operator-reported data. Where pricing is gated (e.g., Skimmer, Pool Brain), we use operator-reported estimates and label them as such. We do not present operator estimates as official vendor pricing.

Corrections policy

We correct factual errors as soon as we learn of them. Corrections appear as updated content with a revised "Last updated" date. For material corrections (changed conclusions, revised rankings, removed claims), we add an explicit correction note at the top of the affected page for 30 days.

To submit a correction: email editorial@getstackmatch.com with the specific claim and your source. We respond within 2 business days.

Refresh cadence

Pages are reviewed and refreshed on this schedule:

• Vendor profile pages: Quarterly minimum. Immediate updates for structural changes (new tiers, deprecated features, ownership changes).
• Comparison pages: Quarterly. Refreshed when either compared vendor changes materially.
• Pricing pages and pricing-comparison page: Quarterly. Refreshed immediately on vendor pricing changes.
• Use-case pages and buyer's guides: Semi-annually, plus when the underlying vendor data shifts.
• Methodology and editorial standards: Reviewed annually; minor updates as practice evolves.

Conflicts of interest

We disclose all financial relationships with vendors we cover. This includes:

• Affiliate commissions (disclosed near every monetized link and in methodology)
• Featured Listings (clearly badged when in place; see sponsor page for terms)
• Direct partnership relationships (e.g., StackMatch is an approved Workiz partner)

We do not currently hold equity in any covered vendor. We do not currently have employment relationships with any vendor employee. If either situation changes, we will disclose immediately on the methodology page and on relevant vendor profiles.

Vendor relationships

We respond to vendor inquiries within 2 business days. Vendors may submit factual corrections (pricing changes, feature updates, program terms) which we incorporate after verification. Vendors may not:

• Submit pre-written editorial content for us to publish
• Request removal of negative editorial coverage
• Request ranking adjustments tied to payment
• Influence the use-case recommendations on our decision tools

We do accept Featured Listings (disclosed) and Lead-gen partnerships (disclosed). Editorial position is never part of those commercial conversations.

Anonymous sources

Many of our research conversations with operators happen under conditions of anonymity (operators don't want to publicly discuss their software stack). We use those conversations to inform editorial conclusions but do not present anonymous operator opinion as testimonial evidence. Direct quotes require named attribution.

Use of AI

Editorial analysis and conclusions are written by the StackMatch editorial team. We use generative AI tools to assist with research, summarization, drafting, and code — but every published claim is reviewed and verified by an editor. We do not publish AI-generated content as-is.

Where AI has materially contributed to a published article (research synthesis, calculator implementation, etc.), the article's metadata reflects that. We do not pass off AI-generated content as human-written analysis.

Reader feedback

Editorial improves when readers push back. If you spot something that's wrong, missing, or misleading — email editorial@getstackmatch.com. We read everything and respond within 2 business days.

---

See also: Methodology (ranking framework) · Privacy · Terms · About StackMatch · Contact