Editorial policy
We sell a live chat widget and we review live chat widgets
That is a conflict of interest and no disclosure removes it. Here is what we do about it instead, and the four things we will not publish no matter how well they would work.
Last checked 1 September 2026
The short answer
Can you trust a comparison written by a competitor?
Not on trust, no. So the pages are built so you do not have to. Every competitor figure links to its source, every price carries the date it was read, every comparison has a section naming when the other product is the better choice, and the corrections we have made are listed publicly rather than edited away.
There are no affiliate links on this site and no vendor pays us anything. Check the numbers rather than believing the framing.
Who writes this
Outline Technologies LLC, registered at 30 N Gould St, Ste R, Sheridan, WY 82801, US. The same small team builds the product and writes the pages. There is no editorial department and claiming one would be the first false thing here.
What that buys you is that the person writing about widget weight is the person who has spent time getting a bundle under 30KB and knows exactly which corners were cut to do it. What it costs you is obvious, and the rest of this page is about how that cost is managed.
The five rules
| Rule | Why it exists |
|---|---|
| Every number has a source and a date | A figure nobody can check is worth nothing, and an assistant quoting an invented figure damages the person who trusted it. |
| Competitor measurements are somebody else’s | A vendor measuring a rival picks the configuration, and that choice is the entire result. We cite DebugBear and stay out of it. |
| Every comparison names a reason to stay | A page that cannot name one is an advert, and readers work that out within two paragraphs. |
| Unverifiable means omitted | An empty cell costs a page nothing. An invented cell costs the site its credibility the first time somebody checks. |
| Corrections are logged, not edited away | A site with no corrections page either never got anything wrong or does not tell you when it did. |
What we will not publish
Competitor benchmarks we ran ourselves. We could produce a table where every rival looks slow and it would be technically true and completely worthless. DebugBear's numbers are worth more than ours precisely because they are not ours.
Feature comparison tables built from a rival's weakest tier. The standard trick in this category is to compare your top plan against their entry plan and put a lot of green ticks in one column. Where we compare tiers we say which tiers.
Prices without dates. A price with no date is a price that was true once. Everything on this site carries the day it was read, and when the price moves, so does the date.
Anything implying our visitors need Telegram. They do not, and the temptation to blur that line to look bigger than we are is real, so it is written down as a rule instead of left to judgement.
How a vendor gets on the list
A vendor is included when real people compare it with us, which is a lower bar than it sounds and an honest one. That currently gives 12 products, spanning a range from Intercom, which is a different class of software, to Elfsight, which is a button.
Nobody is excluded for being better. Tawk.to is genuinely free forever and that sentence appears on every page Tawk.to is on. LiveAgent has the lightest widget anyone measured and we say so. Zoho SalesIQ is faster than us on CPU time in DebugBear's test and that is in the table too.
How AI is used here
Drafting, phrasing and finding a source we half remembered. Not fact generation. Every figure is checked by a person against the source before it goes live, and every claim about a competitor is read against that competitor's own page rather than against a summary of it.
The specific failure this guards against is a fluent, confident sentence containing a number nobody verified. That is the thing that makes an otherwise good page worthless, and it is the reason the corrections table exists.
Corrections and complaints
Mail [email protected] with the page, the line and what is actually true. A wrong figure gets changed and added to the corrections table on the methodology page. A judgement you disagree with may well stay, and we will tell you why rather than ignore you.
Vendors get the same treatment as anyone else, which cuts both ways: a wrong number about your product gets fixed quickly, and a correct number you dislike does not get removed.
The bottom line
The honest summary is that you should not trust a comparison written by a competitor, and we have built these pages so that you do not need to. Sources on every figure, dates on every price, a reason to stay on every comparison, and a public list of what we got wrong.
If any of that stops being true, the pages stop being worth reading, and we would rather you checked than took our word for it.
Frequently asked questions
Who writes the comparisons on this site?
Do you accept payment for placement or reviews?
How do you decide which vendors to include?
What is your conflict of interest?
How do you handle corrections?
Do you use AI to write these pages?
How often is content updated?
Can a vendor ask for a correction?
Sources and references
- Our methodology and corrections log How each number is produced, plus the four claims we published wrong.
- Google Search Central: creating helpful, reliable, people first content The guidance these rules were written against.
Published by Outline Technologies LLC, 30 N Gould St, Ste R, Sheridan, WY 82801, US. Contact [email protected].