Editorial Methodology

Stack Briefs compares business software from the buyer's point of view. We define the decision first, identify the limits most likely to change it and record a dated snapshot of the evidence behind our verdict.

Sources and capture dates

Prices, plan limits and product capabilities are checked against official vendor pricing pages, help centres, policy documents and integration directories. Every comparison states when those facts were captured and links material claims to the relevant first-party source. We do not treat an undated third-party feature table as authoritative product documentation.

Published prices are starting points, not personalized quotes. Taxes, billing terms, audience size, sending volume, geography, usage and add-ons can change the final cost. Readers should verify any purchase-critical number with the vendor.

Comparison process

We choose criteria that match the job in the brief, normalize plans around a realistic use case and examine exclusions as closely as headline features. We separate documented capability from our editorial interpretation. When we have not independently tested a claim, such as inbox placement, we say so instead of manufacturing a winner.

Verdicts weigh practical fit, cost structure, constraints and operational complexity. Affiliate availability is not a scoring criterion. We revisit conclusions when new first-party evidence materially changes the comparison.

Corrections

Software documentation can conflict or change between checks. When evidence is ambiguous, the brief should describe the uncertainty. Material corrections should update the page date and the supporting link rather than silently preserving a stale claim.