How REPs compares competitor software.
Our /compare pages are written to be factual, objective, verifiable and non-misleading. This page explains how we compile them, what sources we use, how often we re-check, and how to request a correction.
Last full review of comparison data: 3 June 2026.
Sourced from each vendor's public pricing page.
For each competitor, we record their published pricing tiers, client limits, free-trial terms, paid add-ons, and any features they explicitly list as included or excluded. The source is the vendor's own pricing and feature pages on the date we check.
Where a claim depends on a specific paid add-on (for example, a branded app, an AI module, or per-client charges), we cite the add-on by the name the vendor uses on their page so the reader can verify it directly.
REPs' own pricing is taken from the live REPs pricing page. REPs has a 3-tier ladder (Verified, Pro, Studio). When we say a feature is "included in your tier", we mean it's included on the REPs tier shown next to the claim — not that REPs ships a single universal plan.
What we do — and what we don't.
Publicly available information only
Competitor pricing, tiers, client limits, add-ons and feature lists are taken from each vendor's publicly available pricing and feature pages. We do not use leaked, confidential or paywalled material, and we do not claim privileged access to any competitor's internal data.
Source records are kept internally
We keep internal evidence of the page state on the date we checked it — purely so we can defend a specific claim if a competitor challenges it. We do not republish raw scraped HTML or full vendor screenshots on this site. The on-page comparison itself is the published artefact.
Re-checked on a stated date
Every comparison page shows a "Last checked" date. That date reflects the most recent review of the underlying vendor pricing page. Pricing and features change — when we re-check, the date moves and any affected claims are updated or removed.
Honest where the competitor wins
Each head-to-head page includes a "When [competitor] is the right choice" section. If your needs fit a competitor better, we say so. The goal is a comparison a reader can trust, not a sales sheet.
Corrections welcome
If a claim is out of date, incomplete or wrong, we'd rather know. Email a correction request and we'll review the source page, update the claim or remove it.
Language we deliberately don't use.
- We don't describe our comparisons as "legally guaranteed". They're an honest read of publicly available information at a stated point in time.
- We don't describe our process as "legally scraped". We use "publicly available information" or "publicly available source data".
- We don't republish raw scraped HTML, full vendor screenshots, or anything that could be passed off as the vendor's own marketing material. Source captures are kept internally as evidence only.
- We don't treat REPs as a single flat plan in comparison copy. REPs has a 3-tier ladder, and any "everything included" framing always means "inside your chosen REPs tier".
Spotted something wrong? Tell us.
If you're a competitor, a customer, or just a reader who's checked the source and thinks we've got something out of date or incorrect, please get in touch. We'll review the source page and either update the claim, add context, or remove it.