Last updated 3 August 2026
The source hierarchy
Every claim on this site is ranked by where it came from, and the ranking decides whether it gets published as fact, published with attribution, or dropped.
- Tier one — the organisation that owns the thing. Browser behaviour comes from the Chromium blog, WebKit and Mozilla. Protocol behaviour comes from the IETF and the W3C. These are published as fact, with a date.
- Tier two — platform documentation. Minimum deposits, ad formats, targeting options and payment methods come from the networks' own dashboards and docs. Published as fact, dated, and labelled as vendor-stated where the vendor has an interest in the number.
- Tier three — documented user reports. Forum threads and review-site posts are used only as attributed observation, never as fact, and only when they carry a date.
- Not a source — competitor reviews. Other guides are read to see what the field already covers. Nothing factual is ever taken from them. They copy each other, which is how a 2018 app-notification statistic is still being cited in 2026 as evidence about browser push inventory.
What gets checked before publication
For a network entry in the comparison table: launch year, advertiser minimum deposit, GEO coverage, which push formats are actually sold, pricing model, and payment methods. For a technical claim: the primary document, the exact wording, and the date it was published. Anything that fails to resolve to a source is removed rather than softened into a vague sentence.
Two checks catch most of the errors that would otherwise ship. The first is a format check — several networks sell a notification-styled unit that is not in-page push, and treating those as equivalent produces advice that does not transfer. The second is a date check, because a minimum deposit accurate in January is routinely wrong by August.
What this site does not claim
No first-hand campaign spend appears anywhere on the guide. Nobody here ran a live buy on eight networks, so there are no CPC screenshots, no ROI figures and no case studies. Where a number would have required spending money to verify, the text says so and stops there. That is a real limitation and it is stated rather than papered over.
Network volume claims — bid requests per day, impressions per day, active advertiser counts — are reproduced as company statements and labelled as such. No push network publishes third-party verification of its inventory, so nobody, including this site, can confirm those figures.
How the comparison table is ordered
AdsCompass appears first because it is this site's commercial partner, and that is disclosed rather than disguised as a ranking. The remaining rows run by advertiser minimum deposit. The guide also names a specific weakness in the partner's product — its optimisation is manual, with no algorithmic bid manager, which is a genuine reason to pay a higher minimum elsewhere. The commercial terms behind that arrangement are in the affiliate disclosure.
When data gets refreshed
Pricing and format data carry a verification date in the footer of the page they appear on. Browser enforcement changes are the fastest-moving part of this subject and trigger an update whenever a vendor ships something material. Corrections are handled on a shorter clock than scheduled reviews — the process is described in the editorial policy, and the address is on the contact page.
The person applying this methodology is named: see Christoph Trappe. Background on why the site works this way is on the about page. What this standard does not guarantee is stated in the terms of use, and what the site collects from readers is in the privacy policy.