Comparisons, with the sources attached

We will compare ourselves to anything, on one condition: every claim we make about somebody else's product carries a link to their own page and the date we checked it.

Why most comparison pages are worthless

You have read them. A table with green ticks down one column and grey crosses down the other, no sources, no dates, and a competitor set chosen so that the vendor wins. Everyone in B2B software produces these, everyone knows they are marketing, and they are still the pages buyers read — which makes the whole genre slightly embarrassing.

They are also legally careless. A statement of fact about a competitor's product or price that is wrong is not a matter of opinion, and "it was true when we wrote it" is not much of a defence when the page has no date on it.

The rule we hold ourselves to

Every row of every comparison table on this site is a record with a source URL and a verification date, and the page prints both next to the claim rather than hiding them in a footnote. If a claim has not been re-checked in ninety days, the page says so to you, at the top, rather than quietly going stale.

We only compare on things that can be pointed at: published price, what the billable unit is, where the data is stored, whether a capability exists at all. We do not compare on how well anybody does anything, because that is an opinion and we are not a neutral party.

And where a table has no verified rows, the page does not exist rather than showing an empty comparison — an empty table implies things it should not. That is enforced in the software, not in a style guide.

• Every claim about another vendor: source link plus the date we checked it, in the row.
• Claims older than ninety days are flagged to you as due a re-check.
• Facts only — price, seat model, data location, whether a feature exists.
• Found something wrong? Tell us and we will correct it, including if it favours us.

What you can compare here today

The comparison against a spreadsheet needs no claims about anybody, so it is the most useful page here and the most honest — it includes the cases where the spreadsheet is genuinely the right answer and you should not buy anything.

The page comparing our two editions is the other one worth your time if you have landed here trying to work out which of them you need. It is written to send you to the cheaper one when the cheaper one is right.

Named-vendor comparisons appear here as and when we have verified the claims to publish them. We would rather this list be short than fast.

How to read anybody's comparison page, including ours

A few tests will tell you within a minute whether a comparison page is research or advertising, and they work on this one as well as on everybody else's.

• Is there a date? A comparison without one is making a claim about a moving target and declining to say when it stopped moving.
• Can you click through to the source? If the only evidence is the vendor's own assertion, you are reading a brochure.
• Does the page ever concede anything? A table where one column wins every row was built backwards from its conclusion.
• Are the rows facts or adjectives? "Better reporting" is not a comparison. "Reports exportable as CSV: yes or no" is.
• Is the competitor set plausible, or has everyone who would win been quietly omitted?

What you can compare here today, in one place

• Which of our two products you need — written to send you to the cheaper one where that is the right answer
• What each plan costs — per agent, in rupees, with GST shown and no card to start

The comparison that actually decides it

None of this settles a purchase, and we would be lying if we implied otherwise. Run a week of your real tickets through the shortlist. The thing you learn in that week — whether your team reaches for it or works around it — is worth more than every feature table you will read, ours included.

If you want one exercise rather than a trial: take the five requests that caused the most friction last month, and walk each one through every product on your list, end to end, including the reply the requester receives. Most shortlists collapse to one candidate by the third request.