Our data & methodology

Every comparison on ToolFit is built from a maintained dataset of vendor pricing and features — re-verified on a schedule, with the date of last verification shown on every page.

12 tools tracked · data verified through at least 2026-07-05

Where the data comes from

We record each tool's pricing and plan structure from the vendor's own published pricing page — plans and tiers, monthly and annual cost, free-plan availability, contact/send limits, and the features that decide a purchase. Figures are captured as structured data, not screenshots, so every number is exact and traceable to its source.

How we verify and keep it fresh

• We re-check tracked tools on a recurring schedule and stamp each with the date it was last verified — the figure above is the OLDEST such date across the dataset, so every tool has been verified on or after it.
• Raw source snapshots are stored immutably by date, so we keep a price history a site starting today simply cannot backfill.
• Automated checks flag anomalies (a failed fetch, a page with zero extracted plans, an unexpected price jump) and pause publishing until a human confirms — we would rather be briefly out of date than confidently wrong.

What we do and don't do

We want to be exact about the boundary of what this dataset is, so you can judge how much weight to put on it.

What we do: we track and re-verify each vendor's own published pricing — plan names, monthly and annual cost, free-plan availability, contact/send limits, and stated features — on a recurring schedule, and we keep a dated history of every change we record.

What we don't do (yet): we do not sign up for these tools and run hands-on product testing, and we do not run deliverability testing (inbox-placement, spam-filter, or sending-reputation tests). Any rating or sentiment you see attributed to a third-party review platform is exactly that — aggregated from that platform, not a ToolFit-conducted test — and is labelled and dated as such.

That is a real, disclosed limit rather than an unfalsifiable "we tested every tool" claim. We'd rather tell you exactly what we checked than imply more than we did.

When each tool was last verified

Here is the current dataset — 12 tools, each with the date we last confirmed its pricing and the page we checked:

How the ToolFit Score works

The homepage table ranks by the ToolFit Score — a deterministic 0-100 composite computed from this same maintained dataset on every build, never hand-typed — and the pricing, alternatives, best-for and vs pages each show a tool's score and its breakdown. Every factor is scored 0-100 on its own and shown separately on the page — this is a disclosed breakdown, not one opaque number. It weighs six factors:

Weights v2.0.0. The homepage's "Top pick" is simply the highest-scoring tool under this default weighting — best overall, not the cheapest.

Review sentiment — how it enters the score

Review sentiment is a count-weighted average of published ratings across third-party platforms (G2, Trustpilot, Capterra) — never our own opinion, and never built from raw review text. Two safeguards keep a small or stale sample from swinging the ranking:

• A minimum-review floor. A tool's rating counts at full weight only once it has enough total reviews behind it; below that floor the rating is pulled toward a neutral midpoint in proportion to how thin the sample is — a handful of reviews can still nudge the score, but can never swing it the way a well-reviewed tool's rating can.
• Honest freshness. Review data is re-verified on its own cadence, slower than pricing. If a tool's review data falls behind that cadence, the breakdown says so explicitly next to the number — a stale rating is disclosed, never hidden and never presented as current.

A tool with no published review data yet simply has no review-sentiment component: the other factors are reweighted to fill the full 100 points, so a missing rating never reads as a zero and is never silently dropped from the breakdown — it shows as "no published review-sentiment data yet." Coverage is partial today and grows as more sources are added; the ranking stays coherent either way.

We only publish a score for a tool once its pricing and features have been confirmed against a live fetch of the vendor's page — a tool still on onboarding probation (what we call a "canary") shows no score at all rather than one built on unverified data. Most of our roster is still in that verification queue today, so seeing no score on a tool is the normal case, not a gap. A tool's review-sentiment component additionally withholds an unverified rating on the live site until we've hand-confirmed it against the source platform — the same verification gate as the review data shown elsewhere on its page.

Why this beats a thin AI comparison

Most SaaS comparison pages — including AI-generated ones — are written once and never revisited, so their prices quietly rot. Our edge is the opposite: a dated, structured dataset that we actively maintain and re-verify, with the verification date visible on every page. That is what makes these comparisons trustworthy to cite, for a reader or an answer engine, long after a one-shot listicle has gone stale.

Spotted a figure that looks out of date? Email [email protected] and we will re-verify it.