Five kinds of page, one method. A company’s own published material is the only source we use for a number about it; anything we work out ourselves is labeled as derived with the arithmetic shown; and nothing here concludes that the app to install is one of ours.
Reviews
Eight reward apps, read against their own terms and help centers rather than their marketing. Each one says where it beats us.
Read the reviews →What they actually pay
The long division the companies publish everything for except the answer: what one action is worth, and how long a first payout takes.
See the math →What they actually cost
“Free” is the start of the answer. These work out the subscription, the trial, the waiting timer and the data.
See the prices →Alternatives
What to install instead, for apps and for games — sorted by how they differ rather than ranked one to ten.
Compare them →Articles
The questions underneath all of it: where the money comes from, whether these apps are safe, and what happens when one shuts down.
Read the articles →Why a developer publishes research on its competitors
Because we are in the same market and can read the documents. A reward app’s terms of service, a subscription app’s pricing page and a free game’s store listing are all public, and almost nobody writing about them opens the primary source. We do, we cite the exact page, and we date it.
The obvious objection is that we compete with most of the subjects. That is why the conflict of interest goes above the verdict rather than in a footnote, why every page carries a section on what the other app does better, and why none of them ends by recommending ours. Where we make nothing comparable — a meditation app, an AI assistant — the page says that instead, which is the stronger version of the same disclosure.
The engineering writing is the same instinct pointed at our own work: real numbers out of our own builds, in engineering.