Frequently Asked Questions

An independent site publishing head-to-head comparisons across seven categories — smartphones and tablets, laptops and PCs, cars and EVs, home appliances, audio, gaming, and software and cloud tools. Each comparison is built to help with a specific decision between two named products, rather than to review either one in isolation or produce a generic "best of" list with no real point of comparison.

A small editorial team rather than a single named reviewer. Most articles pass through at least two people — one handling research and drafting, another fact-checking the claims against their original sources before publication. We keep individual contributors unnamed for now rather than attach a byline to a workflow that's genuinely a team effort. More detail on this is on the About page.

No. We're independently run, and no brand reviews or approves an article before it goes live. Where affiliate commerce links exist, they're disclosed on the affiliate disclosure page rather than left unmentioned.

Mostly the second, and we say so rather than implying otherwise. Every comparison starts from manufacturer specifications, then gets cross-checked against independent professional reviews and long-term owner reports. Where we've directly used a product ourselves, the article states that explicitly rather than leaving it ambiguous or letting the phrasing suggest hands-on testing that didn't happen. Full detail is on the Methodology page.

We look for a third source to help resolve it, and generally trust a measured, independent result over a manufacturer's claimed figure. If the disagreement genuinely can't be settled, the article says so rather than silently picking a number.

Whenever a product involved is discontinued, replaced, or meaningfully repriced, and on a slower periodic pass for older pages even without a specific trigger prompting the review. Reader reports through the Contact page also prompt updates — they're one of our more reliable signals that something's gone stale before we'd otherwise have caught it.

Because those are the categories where readers most often arrive already choosing between two specific, named products rather than browsing broadly. We'd rather cover seven categories properly, with real depth in each, than stretch into a dozen with only a couple of thin comparisons apiece just to look more comprehensive on paper.

Yes — use the form further down this page, or the Contact page. Requests like this genuinely shape what we research next, and a fair number of comparisons currently on the site started out as exactly this kind of message.

It reflects how clear-cut the comparison's conclusion is for most buyers, not an absolute quality score for either product on its own. A 4.6–4.7 usually means the evidence points fairly clearly to one product suiting most people better; something closer to 4.0–4.2 usually means the two are more evenly matched, or the right pick depends heavily on personal priorities the article can describe but can't fully weigh for you.

Because sometimes there genuinely isn't one for most buyers. A laptop that's better for battery life on the road isn't automatically better for someone editing video daily, and pretending otherwise for a tidier headline wouldn't actually help you decide. Where that's the case, the article names who each product actually suits rather than forcing an artificial winner onto every kind of reader.

No. The comparison and its conclusion are decided first, based on the criteria described in the article. An affiliate link, where one exists, is added afterward to whichever retailer stocks the recommended product — it doesn't feed back into the recommendation itself.

The page URL or title, the specific claim you're questioning, and — where you have one — a source for the correct figure. That's usually enough for us to check it quickly against our original research and fix it if you're right, without a lot of back-and-forth to pin down what you actually meant.

We aim to acknowledge correction reports within a few business days. The fix itself can take a little longer if it requires re-checking sources rather than just updating a single number on the page.

If you left contact details, yes — we try to let people know when their report led to an actual correction, partly because it's the right thing to do and partly because it tells us the reporting process is working.

Mainly display advertising and affiliate commissions earned when someone buys through a linked retailer after clicking from this site, at no extra cost to the buyer. Neither influences which product a comparison recommends. More detail is on the Funding Policy page.

Not at the time of writing. If that changes for a specific article in the future, it will carry a clear label saying so directly on that page rather than being disclosed only in a general policy document buried elsewhere on the site.

The search box on the all comparisons page checks titles and summaries across every category at once, which is usually faster than browsing by category if you already know the two specific products you're deciding between and just want to jump straight to the relevant article.

We haven't covered every product on the market, and we're upfront about that rather than padding the directory with thin entries just to look comprehensive on paper. The form further down this page is the fastest way to ask us to prioritise a specific pairing you're personally deciding between.

Occasionally a product could reasonably fit two categories — a tablet that might replace a laptop, for example. We place it wherever the buying decision has more in common: that tablet example sits under Smartphones & Tablets, since the update cycle and hardware behave more like a phone's than a genuine laptop's.

Not necessarily. Pricing, trim availability, and even hardware configurations vary by market, and a comparison written with one region's lineup in mind may not map exactly onto what's sold where you are. Treat quoted prices as a rough point of reference and confirm the current figure with a local retailer before buying — this matters most for cars and EVs, where regional incentives and financing offers can shift the real cost significantly.

Standard analytics and advertising cookies are used, as described in our privacy policy. We don't sell personal data, and the privacy policy explains exactly what's collected and how it's used.

The Contact page is the right channel for this — mention the page and, if possible, the assistive technology or browser you were using. Accessibility reports are treated with the same priority as factual corrections.

Short quotes with a clear link back to the original article are generally fine. For anything more substantial — republishing a full comparison, using our ratings in your own content — reach out through the Contact page first.

Because most comparisons genuinely pass through more than one person before publishing — research, drafting, and fact-checking aren't always handled by the same contributor, so a single byline would overstate any one person's role rather than accurately reflect how the article came together.

Occasionally, for specific categories where we're looking to go deeper. Reach out through the Contact page with relevant experience or writing samples if you're interested.

No — this is a standalone, independently run publication. If you've seen similar-sounding content elsewhere, it isn't from this editorial team, and we can't vouch for another site's accuracy or process.

We flag a comparison plainly when a product in it has been discontinued or heavily repriced rather than leaving the page looking current when it isn't. If you spot one we've missed, that's exactly the kind of thing worth reporting.

Generally not. We wait until a product is officially announced with real, confirmed specifications before comparing it, rather than speculating on rumours that may not match what actually ships once the product is finalised.

We either update it to compare the replacement model directly, or add a clear note at the top explaining the product's current status, depending on how much of the original comparison's content still holds up despite the discontinuation.

The Ethics Code covers the standards we hold our own writing and research to — accuracy, disclosure, how we handle corrections. The Independence page is specifically about our relationship with manufacturers and retailers, and why a business relationship with either doesn't change what an article concludes.

The Funding Policy page is the dedicated page for this — it goes further into specifics than the short answer given earlier on this page, including how ad revenue and affiliate income are actually split across categories.

Yes — they're not decorative. For example, the fact-check pass described in our methodology exists specifically because the Ethics Code requires every published claim to be traceable back to a source, not because it's a nice extra step we happened to add.

Yes — most of our traffic actually comes from mobile, so comparison pages are laid out to keep spec tables and image comparisons readable on a small screen rather than treating mobile as an afterthought.

We don't currently have a built-in bookmarking feature, so your browser's own bookmark or reading-list function is the most reliable way to save a page for later.

The site's design has evolved over time, and rather than mass-reformatting every older article the moment the design changes, we update the layout as we revisit a page's content for other reasons. The underlying information stays equally reliable either way.

Tell us specifically which claim or conclusion looks off, and why — vague accusations of bias are hard to act on, but a specific factual disagreement is something we can actually check against our sources and correct if it's warranted. We'd also point out that some of our highest-rated products carry no affiliate relationship at all, and some lower-rated ones do, which is a reasonable practical check on whether commission is genuinely driving our conclusions rather than just something we assert about ourselves.

No. Comparisons aren't shared with the brands involved for review or approval before going live. If a company disputes something after publication, we treat that the same way we'd treat a reader's correction report — check it against the sources, and fix it if they're right.

A single unverified post isn't treated as fact on its own. We look for a pattern — several independent reports converging on the same issue — before folding owner-reported information into a comparison, and we don't use anonymous claims as a standalone source for a specific factual statement.

Yes, honestly — no process is perfect, and manufacturer information itself is occasionally revised after a product's initial launch date. That's exactly why the correction process described earlier on this page exists and gets used regularly, rather than being a rarely-touched formality nobody actually relies on.

That usually means the two products are genuinely close for your specific situation, and the comparison should say so rather than force a decision the evidence doesn't clearly support. In that case, the deciding factor is often something personal — an accessory you already own, a specific feature you rely on daily, or simply which one is on sale right now — rather than anything we could rank for you from the outside.

Treat it as historical context rather than a current quote. Prices shift constantly, sometimes within weeks of a comparison being published, so always check the retailer's current listing before making a purchase decision based on price.

Usually the closing recommendation-by-use-case section, since it translates everything above it into "which one, for whom" rather than leaving you to weigh a dozen individual specs yourself with no clear synthesis. If you're short on time, that's the section worth reading even if you skip the rest of the article entirely.

Some categories — pricing tiers for software, in particular — don't reduce cleanly to one number without losing the nuance that actually matters for a reader's decision. Where a score would oversimplify more than it clarifies, we leave it out rather than manufacturing a figure for the sake of consistency across the site.

Not currently. If that changes in the future, it will be linked clearly from the footer of every page rather than announced only in one place and left for readers to stumble across.

Sure — feedback on the site's structure, not just its content, is welcome through the form below. If enough people ask the same question we haven't covered here, that's usually a sign this page needs another section.

Display advertising is one of the two main ways this site is funded, alongside affiliate commissions, and it's what allows the comparisons to stay free to read without a subscription. Ad placement is handled through a third-party network, and we don't personally select which specific ads appear.

Not necessarily — ad networks serve based on general browsing signals, not on which product our editorial content actually recommends. An ad appearing next to an article shouldn't be read as an endorsement from us of whatever it happens to be promoting that day.

Ad personalisation settings are generally controlled through your browser or device rather than through anything on this site directly, and the specifics of what our ad network collects are covered in the privacy policy linked in the footer of every page.