How Moneda decides
Moneda compares AI tools and says which one to buy. AI agents do the research and drafting; a human editor, Signal, reviews the conclusions and is accountable for what gets published. Below is how a verdict actually gets made, including the parts that are still incomplete.
Every verdict has written criteria behind it
The hard part of a comparison isn’t picking a winner. It’s being able to say why, in a way you can disagree with. So before a decision is published, the criteria that settle it are written down: specific differences between the products, each one tied to something the product itself states — a pricing page, a feature list, a docs page — with the date it was checked.
A criterion has to be a real difference. If both tools do a thing, that thing decides nothing and doesn’t count. If neither product says it anywhere, it doesn’t count either, however plausible it sounds. All 52 decisions on this site now carry a model like this, and the verdict follows from the criteria rather than the other way round.
Some decisions don’t have a winner, and we say so
When the criteria point at different products for different buyers, there is no single right answer, and naming one would just be telling you what we thought of someone else’s needs. Those pages give you the split instead: this kind of team should buy this, that kind should buy that.
Being straight about where this stands: 24 of the 52 models come out with no single winner, and only two pages are currently published that way. We’re working through the rest. If you’re reading a page that names one winner while the reasoning underneath it clearly describes two different buyers, that page is on the list and hasn’t been rewritten yet.
Nothing here has been hands-on tested
Every comparison on this site is research-based: primary documentation, pricing pages, changelogs and vendor docs, read and dated. We have a separate label for hands-on testing and we are not using it on any page today, because nobody has sat down and run these tools through a real workflow for the purposes of this site.
That label exists so that if it ever appears, it means something. Plenty of sites imply testing they didn’t do. Ours says which one you’re reading, at the top of the page.
What would change our mind
Most decisions here end with the condition that would flip them — the price move, the missing feature shipping, the limit being lifted. A verdict that can’t say what would overturn it is closer to a preference than a judgement, and it also tells you how close the call was.
How pages stay current
Every decision carries the date its evidence was last checked, and shows it. A decision gets re-examined when something it relies on actually moves — a price change, a new hosting option, a change in what the product is for — and at minimum every 90 days regardless, in case something moved that we weren’t watching.
Absences expire too. “This tool doesn’t do X” is only true until the day it does, so those statements are re-checked rather than left standing, and they go stale faster than the rest.
Individual claims can also carry their own source and date — what a tool charges, where it can run, how it handles your data. That depth exists on 10 of the 38 tool pages so far rather than all of them, and it is being filled in vertical by vertical. Where it isn’t there yet, the decision page’s own checked date is what you have.
How this is paid for
One of the 38 tools listed here carries a paid link, and it is marked as one wherever it appears. The other 37 links go to the vendor because that is where you go next, and they earn us nothing.
Commission never enters a ranking. That isn’t a promise about our character — the commercial figures live in a file the ranking code cannot read, and a test fails if that ever stops being true.
Why you won’t see a score out of five
Most comparison sites rate every tool. We don’t, because one number has to average across everybody — and the person picking a code review tool for a team of forty isn’t asking the same question as someone picking one for a weekend project. A score that suits both suits neither.
The machine-readable data behind each page follows the same rule. It repeats the shortlist, verdict and date you can already see, and it never carries a star rating that isn’t on the page — because a rating only search engines can see is a claim we’d be making to Google and not to you.
Where to push back
If a fact here is out of date or a verdict looks wrong, the useful thing to send is the source and the date. That is the form the whole system runs on, and it is the fastest way to get a page changed.