Comparison methodology

Document version 1.0. Reviewed 2026-10-05. Effective 2026-10-05. Native CMS revision and publication history are retained separately for this document.

Define the workload first: required capabilities, contacts, sends, seats and comparison horizon where relevant. Evaluate every offer against the same scenario. Show the currency, market and tax basis instead of normalizing them silently.

Separate what is due now from recurring commitments, annual prepayment and total charges over the horizon. Annual base fees and monthly add-ons follow their own cadence. A monthly equivalent spreads a cost for comparison and is not evidence that the supplier accepts monthly payment.

Use dated evidence for each component and plan limit. Unknown charges and quote-only offers remain incomplete. Do not rank raw gross and net charges together as a comparable full cost without an explicit tax normalization policy.

An eligible result must satisfy the selected scope and financial basis. Limits, missing features and evidence gaps should be visible beside the result. Sorting by a documented cost measure does not establish a universal best product.

Supplier documentation, contractual quotes and performed tests are different evidence types. A feature claim copied from a public page must not be labelled a hands-on test. Affiliate commission and sponsorship are excluded from arithmetic and eligibility.

Changes to published data require editorial review. Readers should verify the current supplier offer before purchasing and can report inconsistent inputs or calculations through Contact & corrections.

Operator: IT SERVICES MAREK PIETKIEWICZ, Polish sole proprietorship, NIP 5542598947, REGON 341623872. Address: ul. Irysowa 16, 86-031 Osielsko, Poland. Jurisdiction: Poland. VendorClue is the service name of this operator.

Support and editorial corrections: support@magoflow.com. Privacy and data rights: privacy@magoflow.com. Legal notices: legal@magoflow.com.