How Raal writes comparison pages

Last updated: April 17, 2026

This page describes how Raal produces and maintains the comparison pages in raal.io/compare. It covers which competitors we compare against, where the information comes from, how we handle bias, when pages are updated, and how to report an error. We publish this because comparison pages only earn trust when readers can see the method behind them.

What a Raal comparison page is

A Raal comparison page is a structured, factual comparison between Raal and one named alternative. Each page includes a scope summary, a feature table, a pricing model comparison, a "when to choose which" section, and honest acknowledgment of where the competitor is stronger than Raal. Pages describe current-state capabilities for both products, not roadmaps or marketing promises.

Pages are intended for IT, operations, and finance buyers who are actively evaluating vendors and want a clear, verifiable comparison rather than a marketing pitch.

Which competitors we compare against

We publish comparison pages against vendors that Raal customers and prospects actually evaluate us against. Our current comparison set includes Hofy (now Deel IT), Growrk, Workwize, Firstbase, Allwhere, HelloRetriever, and Tequipy. We add new comparison pages when we see a competitor mentioned in at least three independent sales conversations in the same quarter.

We do not publish comparison pages against vendors we've never lost a deal to, never competed with, or whose primary product is in a different category. Writing comparisons for the sake of SEO coverage produces low-quality pages that don't help buyers.

Where the information comes from

Information about competitors comes from three sources, in order of preference.

Primary sources are the competitor's own published material: their website, pricing page, help center, product documentation, and security or compliance pages. When a number or claim appears on this page, it was taken from a primary source first.

Secondary sources are published reviews and independent research: G2, Gartner, TrustRadius, FitGap, and comparison articles written by third parties. We use these when primary sources are vague, outdated, or missing.

Direct testing or customer feedback is used when specific operational claims (like delivery times or customs handling) can only be verified by using the product or asking people who have. We note when a claim relies on this source.

We do not cite anonymous Reddit threads, uncredited blog posts, or competitor comparison pages written by other competitors, because these sources are difficult to verify.

How we handle bias

A comparison page written by one of the vendors being compared is not neutral by definition. We acknowledge this. Our approach is to be honest about it rather than pretend otherwise.

Every Raal comparison page includes a section called "Where [competitor] is genuinely stronger." This section names specific capabilities, scale advantages, or market positions where the competitor is a better choice than Raal. If we can't find anything to put in this section, we don't publish the page, because that usually means we haven't done the research properly.

We avoid language that disparages competitors. We don't describe competitors as "legacy," "overpriced," "bloated," or similar. We describe what each product does, in plain terms, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

We do not cherry-pick unrepresentative pricing scenarios to make Raal look better. When we show a pricing comparison, the scenario is one a typical customer would encounter.

How often pages are updated

Comparison pages are reviewed at least quarterly. We re-check:

• Competitor pricing and plan names
• Published country coverage and feature lists
• Any security or compliance attestations we mention
• Any claims about Raal's own capabilities that may have changed

The "Last updated" date at the top of every comparison page reflects the most recent review, not the original publication date. If a page has been reviewed and nothing changed, the date still updates, because the review itself is the signal that the content is current.

We also update pages outside the quarterly cycle when a competitor makes a material change (new pricing model, new capability, acquisition, rebrand) or when a reader reports an error.

How we describe our own capabilities

We describe what Raal does today, not what we plan to build. When a capability is on our roadmap, we either don't mention it at all or label it clearly as not yet available. We don't use phrases like "coming soon" without a timeline, because they tend to read as available to skimming readers.

When Raal is weaker than a competitor, we say so directly. Comparison pages that hide or minimize real gaps destroy the trust the page is trying to build.

How to report an error

If you find a claim on one of our comparison pages that you believe is inaccurate, outdated, or unfair, email hello@raal.io with the page URL and the specific claim. We review every report, correct genuine errors within five business days, and update the "Last updated" date accordingly.

Corrections go live without ceremony. We don't add disclaimers or "edited on X date" markers unless the original error could have caused material confusion for readers.

What this page is not

This is not a commitment that every Raal comparison page is perfectly neutral. It isn't possible for a vendor to be perfectly neutral about itself, and claiming otherwise would be dishonest. This page describes the practices we follow to produce comparison content that's useful rather than purely promotional.

If you want an independent comparison, G2, TrustRadius, Gartner, and similar platforms publish vendor-neutral research and user reviews. We recommend reading those alongside our comparison pages, not instead of them.

Questions about how we produce our comparison content? Email hello@raal.io. This methodology itself is subject to review and updates. When we change how we write comparisons, this page changes with it.