Comparison methodology
How Motorica compares office software
This methodology explains how Motorica selects topics, products, criteria, sources and updates for buying guides and alternative pages. It makes facts, open questions and editorial assessments traceable.
Publisher and commercial self-interest
Motorica publishes the comparison content and is also the provider of its own office software. This creates a commercial self-interest. We disclose this role on decision pages and keep product facts, editorial assessments and references to Motorica separate.
Selection of topics and products
Topics arise from recurring decisions faced by small businesses and a distinct search intent. A product is mentioned when it is relevant to the question and reliable primary sources are available. Inclusion is neither a recommendation nor a judgement of quality.
- The need or industry must be clearly describable
- The product must fit the search and decision-making situation
- Official information must allow a fair review
Criteria and weighting
We do not use a blanket overall score. Criteria are derived from the relevant workflow and described as essential criteria, desirable criteria or specific points to verify. The importance of a feature depends on the target group, process and reason for switching.
- Fit with the process and target group
- Scope of functions and identifiable limitations
- Roles, permissions, exports and collaboration
- Costs, setup, data migration and ongoing effort
Hierarchy of sources
Official pricing, product and feature pages, documentation, help centres and release notes take priority. Written information from providers may supplement them. Third-party sources are used only for context and do not replace primary evidence for specific product features.
Prices, promotions and additional costs
Pricing information is considered together with the review date, plan, billing period and any visible VAT notice. Additional users, modules, setup, data migration and contract terms are recorded separately where they are disclosed publicly. Time-limited promotions are not treated as the regular long-term price.
Handling unclear or unverifiable information
If a function cannot be clearly substantiated from public sources, we do not claim that it is present or absent. We mark the information as open, describe what is missing and recommend checking it on the official product pages or directly with the provider.
Facts and editorial assessment
Verified product features are presented as facts. Assumptions, practical assessments and recommendations are explicitly identified in the wording as editorial assessments. A single feature does not automatically lead to a recommendation.
Updates and review triggers
Decision pages are reviewed at least every six months. An earlier review takes place when there are known price changes, plan changes, renaming, major changes to functions, new legal requirements or reliable indications that information is outdated. The visible currency notice states the date of the latest source check.
Corrections and feedback
We check factual feedback about outdated or unclear information against the underlying sources. Material corrections are documented traceably with the date, source and affected section. Feedback can be sent to gwd@motorica.io.
Fair presentation of competitors
We use current product names, assign product families unambiguously and avoid unsupported negative claims. Trade marks belong to their respective owners. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, Motorica has no commercial relationship with the competitors mentioned.
Start comparing with transparent criteria
Use the buying guides and alternative pages as a starting point, then check the most important workflows on the official product pages.