OUR METHODOLOGY

Recommendations should
show their work.

There is no universally “best” tool. There is only a better fit for a particular person, constraint, and reason to change. Our method is built around that distinction.

01

What a fit score means

A fit score is an editorial decision aid—not a user rating, a laboratory result, or a claim that one product is objectively superior.

Every score is calculated for a specific switching reason. A privacy-focused alternative may rank first for data ownership and lower for real-time collaboration. The same product can therefore appear in a different order when the reader changes what matters most.

Important: Scores shown during the site's early editorial stage are working assessments based on publicly available product information. A page will explicitly say when hands-on testing has been completed. We never use the word “tested” when we have not actually tested the product.
02

Six dimensions, one decision

30%

Fit for the stated reason

Does the alternative actually solve the reason someone wants to switch—privacy, simplicity, cost, openness, or control—without introducing a larger problem?

20%

Privacy & data control

We examine data collection, encryption claims, hosting choices, account requirements, export options, and whether self-hosting is genuinely practical.

15%

Portability & switching cost

We look at import and export formats, migration tools, lock-in, retraining effort, workflow disruption, and what cannot be carried over.

15%

Value over time

Price is compared for realistic use, not only the cheapest headline plan. Limits, required add-ons, team pricing, and likely upgrades are included.

10%

Usability

A powerful alternative is not useful if the intended audience cannot adopt it. We consider clarity, setup effort, documentation, and everyday friction.

10%

Product sustainability

We consider maintenance activity, business model, community health, release cadence, and whether the product appears dependable enough to switch to.

03

How we research

  1. 1
    Define the switching reason.

    We begin with the user problem, not a list of popular competitors.

  2. 2
    Check primary sources.

    Official pricing, documentation, security pages, privacy policies, product changelogs, and source repositories come first.

  3. 3
    Verify important claims.

    Open-source licenses, export formats, encryption, hosting, and pricing limits are checked rather than inferred from marketing copy.

  4. 4
    Assess the trade-off.

    Every recommendation must state what the reader gives up—not only what they gain.

  5. 5
    Record freshness.

    Time-sensitive facts receive a checked date and are reviewed again when a product changes materially.

04

Commercial independence

Money does not buy rank.

A company cannot pay to become our “best” recommendation or to have a drawback removed. If alternative.tips later earns money from a referral link, that relationship will be labeled beside the relevant link and will not change the scoring method.

Vendors may correct facts.

Product teams are welcome to identify an outdated price or factual error. They do not receive approval rights over our conclusions, comparisons, or descriptions of trade-offs.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Found something wrong?

Corrections are part of the product. We explain how factual updates are handled and what we still need to improve.

Read our corrections policy →