How we vet software
We render judgments, so the method has to be in the open. Here is the rubric every tool is scored against, the rules that keep our rankings independent, and how we make money without selling a single position.
VettedSaaS exists to answer one question without flinching: is this the right tool for you. To keep that answer worth trusting, the way we reach it has to be visible. This page is the standard every category, best of list, and verdict on the site is held to.
How a verdict gets made
Every tool in a category is judged against the same five weighted criteria, scored on a 100 point scale. We work from the real product: its current plans, its published pricing, its documented limits, and the workflows it is actually sold to run. We do not score from a feature checklist or a vendor demo, and we do not invent numbers. Where a figure matters, we verify it by web search in the same session we write it, and we date it.
No single analyst owns a score. A verdict is drafted against the rubric, then checked by a second reviewer before it publishes. When a tool changes, or when we get something wrong, the verdict changes too, on the record, with the date attached.
Five weighted criteria, the same for every tool in a category.
How fast a new user gets to real work. Setup, the learning curve, the daily friction of the interface.
Whether the tool does the job well, not just on the box. Power features, edge cases, and the ceiling you hit at scale.
Published pricing against what you actually get. Plan limits, seat costs, and the price of the tier most teams really need.
How well it fits the stack around it. Native connectors, the API, and the quality of the data that flows both ways.
Getting unstuck. Documentation, response times, migration help, and what is gated behind a higher plan.
Weights shift for some best of lists where a segment demands it, for example price weighted for freelancers or governance weighted for enterprise. When they do, we say so on the page.
The independence rules we do not break
These are not aspirations. They are the conditions under which the site is allowed to publish.
A vendor can buy a labeled listing or link. It can never buy a rank, a score, or a softer conclusion.
Sponsored elements carry a visible tag. Paid and affiliate links use rel="sponsored", with the affiliate disclosure near the first such link on the page.
We do not trade coverage for a free upgrade, and a vendor relationship never earns a place in a ranking.
No invented testing anecdotes, usage hours, quotes, scores, or user counts. We assess against the rubric and name the honest tradeoffs.
For the full scoring scale and how weights are applied, read the methodology. For how money moves through the site, read the disclosure. You can see the rubric in action in our first live cluster, the best CRM software.
No. Rankings are editorial and are never for sale. A paid placement can buy a clearly labeled listing or link, never a rank, a score, or a kinder verdict. The two sides of the business are kept separate on purpose.
Two ways, both disclosed. We earn affiliate commissions when a reader buys through some of our links, and we sell clearly labeled paid placements on the advertise page. Neither changes how a tool scores.
We assess each tool against the same rubric using its real plans, published pricing, and documented limits rather than a sales demo. We name the tradeoffs in plain terms and we do not publish fabricated usage hours, user counts, or invented quotes.
Pricing, tiers, and limits change often, so every commercial page carries a visible last updated date and the month we verified the figures. We re check and correct in public when a tool or its pricing moves.