How We Test and What We Disclose

Our testing process, data sources, funding and correction policy — so you can judge how much weight to give what you read here.

Draft — this page contains unfilled placeholders and is excluded from the index.

Most comparisons of engineering analytics platforms are published by vendors comparing themselves to competitors. This page exists so you can tell what kind of source you're reading and decide how much of it to trust.

Who writes this

[FILL: name] is an engineering manager with [FILL: number] years leading software teams, currently at [FILL: company, or “a company in X sector” if it cannot be named]. [FILL: one sentence of relevant experience — rolling out metrics, team sizes, stack].

Editorial content is published under the Blinkx Analytics byline and reviewed by [FILL: name] before publication.

How we evaluate platforms

Hands-on where possible. When a review is based on direct use, we say so and state the conditions: which team, what size, over what period, on which stack.

Trial conditions. [FILL: standard pilot length — 30 days is the common window] on [FILL: test environment — repository, team size, tooling].

What we assess. Time from signup to first usable number. Quality and completeness of the data returned. False positives and obviously wrong readings. What the tool cannot do that its positioning implies it can. Whether anyone on the team looked at it after week two.

Where we haven't used a tool, the review is marked as based on documentation, vendor demos and public sources. We label these explicitly rather than implying experience we don't have.

Where our numbers come from

Published research is linked to the primary source. Where we cite DORA, LinearB benchmarks, academic studies or vendor research, the link goes to the original document, not to a summary of it.

Pricing data is collected from quotes obtained directly, figures shared by readers, and public pricing pages. Every entry on the pricing page carries its date and source type. Vendor pricing changes and undated pricing data is worthless.

Our own measurements are labelled as such, with methodology stated inline — sample size, time period, what was controlled for and what wasn't.

We distinguish these three categories in the text rather than blending them.

What we get wrong, and how we fix it

Corrections are made in place with a dated note at the foot of the article. We do not silently edit.

If you find an error, [FILL: email]. Vendors disputing a characterisation of their product get the same treatment as anyone else: if the criticism is factually wrong we correct it, and if it's accurate we leave it.

Money

[FILL: choose one option below — the honest one]

Option A — no affiliate links: This site carries no affiliate links and no vendor sponsorship. No vendor has paid for coverage, placement or a rating.

Option B — affiliate links exist: Some links to vendors are affiliate links, marked inline. Affiliate arrangements have no bearing on ratings or recommendations, and we do not accept payment for coverage or placement. Vendors we recommend against are frequently ones with affiliate programmes.

Option C — consulting relationships exist: [FILL: name] does consulting work in engineering measurement. Where a client relationship exists with a vendor discussed on this site, it is disclosed in the article.

Trial accounts and demo access provided by vendors are disclosed in the relevant review. Accepting a trial account is normal; accepting payment for coverage is not, and we don't.

What we don't do

We don't publish vendor-supplied content under our own byline. We don't run "top 10" lists assembled from press releases. We don't rank tools we haven't examined.

Last updated: [FILL: date]