How We Evaluate Link-in-Bio Tools

This page exists so you can audit our conclusions instead of trusting them. It describes what we measure, how much each criterion counts, where our facts come from, and what we do when a company does not publish an answer.

What we measure, and how much it counts

Weights are fixed across platforms. A tool cannot improve its standing by being popular, by being a partner, or by publishing better marketing copy.

How a score is calculated

Each dimension is the average of its underlying fields, expressed out of 10, and the overall score is the weighted sum of the six dimensions. Because the calculation runs directly against the fact matrix, a score can only change when a sourced fact changes or a published weight changes.

• A capability documented as included on the free plan scores full credit.
• The same capability documented only behind a paid tier scores 0.6.
• A capability the platform documents as not offered scores zero.
• A field we could not confirm in first-party documentation also scores zero. A platform cannot be credited with a capability it does not document, so the score reflects documentation quality as well as product scope. This rule is applied identically to all ten platforms, including those we cover most often.
• A documented 0% platform commission scores full credit in the commerce dimension; any commission above zero scores 0.4.

Measurement carries the highest weight because this publication evaluates bio pages as acquisition channels: a page you cannot measure or retarget from cannot be optimised. Commerce is weighted lower, which means a strong storefront does not lift a platform that keeps analytics behind a subscription. If your priority is selling rather than measurement, read the dimension scores rather than the overall score — the platform directory publishes both.

Sourcing rules

• Every fact must come from the platform's own pricing page, help centre, product documentation or app store listing.
• Third-party roundups, affiliate blogs and AI-generated summaries are never used as a source for a fact.
• If a platform does not publish an answer, the field is recorded as unverified. We do not estimate prices or infer feature tiers.
• Where a company's own pages disagree with each other, we record the discrepancy rather than picking the flattering figure. This is why Linktree's and Beacons' current tier prices appear as unverified in our records.
• Each record carries the date its sources were last checked, and the source URLs are listed on the page so you can re-check them yourself.

Why so many fields say unverified

Because link-in-bio pricing pages are increasingly rendered client-side, personalised, or written without figures at all. A roundup that confidently lists every price for every tool is usually copying older roundups. We would rather publish a visible gap than a confident number we cannot support, and we correct records as documentation changes.

Review cadence

Records are re-checked quarterly and whenever a platform announces a pricing or plan change. The check date shown on a record is the date a human opened the source pages, not the date the page was last deployed.

Applied output: the link-in-bio platform directory and the 2026 buyer guide.