Editorial Guidelines

Five principles shape everything we publish.

• Reader first. We write for the person deciding which tool to use, not for the companies that make them. Every article should answer a real question and leave the reader better informed.
• Accuracy over speed. We would rather publish a day later than publish something wrong. Features, pricing, and limits are verified before they go live.
• Honesty about trade-offs. No tool is perfect. We cover weaknesses, missing features, and who a tool is not right for, alongside what it does well.
• Experience over repetition. We aim to add something you can't get from a product's own landing page: hands-on observations, real use cases, and practical comparisons.
• Clarity. We avoid jargon where plain words work, explain technical terms when we need them, and structure articles so you can find answers quickly.

Whenever possible, we use a tool ourselves before we write about it. Our review process follows the same steps each time:

1. Sign up and onboard. We create an account the way a regular user would, noting how easy it is to get started and what the free plan or trial actually includes.
2. Run real tasks. We test the tool on practical jobs that match its purpose, such as writing a blog draft, generating a logo, summarising a document, or building a workflow, rather than relying on demo examples.
3. Check the core claims. We compare what the tool promises with what it delivers, including output quality, speed, accuracy, and limits.
4. Review pricing and plans. We look at what each tier costs, what's locked behind upgrades, and whether the price is fair for what you get.
5. Compare alternatives. We weigh the tool against similar products so readers understand where it stands in its category.
6. Note privacy and support. Where relevant, we review data handling policies, integrations, and the quality of documentation and customer support.

When hands-on testing isn’t possible, for example with enterprise-only products, we say so clearly in the article and base our coverage on official documentation, demos, and verified user feedback.

In reviews, comparisons, and “best of” lists, we judge tools on the same core criteria so our recommendations stay consistent.

Rankings in our lists reflect our editorial judgement for a specific use case. A tool ranked lower isn’t necessarily a bad product; it may simply suit a different type of user. We explain who each option is best for so you can pick the one that fits your needs.

Every factual claim we publish should be traceable to a reliable source or to our own testing.

• Primary sources first. We rely on official product pages, documentation, pricing pages, changelogs, and company announcements before secondary coverage.
• Credible secondary sources. When we cite research, statistics, or industry data, we use reputable publications and studies, and we link to them so readers can check for themselves.
• No invented facts. We don't publish made-up statistics, quotes, testimonials, or features. If something can't be verified, it doesn't go in the article.
• Editorial review. Before publishing, every article is checked by an editor for accuracy, clarity, and fairness, and pricing and feature details are confirmed against the tool's current official pages.
• Dates matter. AI tools change fast, so we show when each article was last updated.

Our opinions are our own, and no company can pay to change a review or a ranking.

• Affiliate links. Some links on Grovers are affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission if you sign up or buy through them, at no extra cost to you. Affiliate relationships never decide whether a tool is covered, how it is rated, or where it appears in a list.
• Deals and discounts. Offers listed in our Deals section are shared to save readers money. We check that they're valid at the time of publishing, but terms are set by each provider.
• Sponsored and partner content. If a company pays for a placement, feature, or article, it will be clearly labelled as sponsored. Sponsored pieces still follow our accuracy standards, and sponsors don't get final approval over our editorial opinions.
• Free access. Companies sometimes give us free accounts or trials for testing. This doesn't guarantee coverage or a positive review.
• Tool listings. Submitting a tool to our directory doesn't guarantee a review, a ranking, or inclusion in editorial articles.

We cover AI tools, and we use some of them in our own work, but a human is responsible for everything we publish.

• Our writers may use AI tools to help with research, outlining, summarising documentation, or checking grammar.
• Opinions, testing results, recommendations, and final wording come from our editorial team.
• Every article is reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by a person before it goes live.
• We never use AI to fabricate reviews, user experiences, quotes, or test results.

We keep our content current and fix mistakes quickly and openly.

• Regular updates. We review our most-read articles regularly and refresh them when a tool changes its pricing, features, or availability. The “last updated” date on each article reflects the most recent review.
• Corrections. If we get something wrong, we correct it as soon as it’s confirmed. Significant corrections, such as a changed rating or a factual error that affected our recommendation, are noted in the article.
• Reporting an error. Spotted something outdated or inaccurate? Let us know through our Contact Us page with the article link and the details, and our editors will review it.
• Submitting a tool. Tool makers can add their product through the Submit page. Our team reviews every submission, and listings must describe the product accurately. We may edit descriptions for clarity and decline tools that are misleading, unsafe, or unavailable.

Questions about these guidelines, a correction to report, or a partnership enquiry? Reach the Grovers editorial team through our Contact Us page. We read every message and aim to respond within a few business days.

These guidelines may be updated as our process evolves. The date at the top of this page shows when they were last revised.