What was there
A grid: our product against two named competitors, fifteen rows of ticks and crosses, prices at the bottom.
It is gone. Not corrected — removed. This page explains why, because the reasoning applies to every such table you will read, including the ones that look more careful than ours did.
The three failures, from our own page
It understated us. Two rows said "coming soon" about features that had shipped: prop firm rule tracking and broker connectivity. The table was written before they existed and nobody updated it. So the page cost us customers for capability we actually had.
It overstated us. One row presented voice notes as a working feature. The full cycle — record, transcribe, produce a verdict — had never been completed end to end, and we knew that internally. On the table it was a tick.
That is the direction that matters. A vendor grid that is wrong in our favour is not a mistake — it is what the format produces by default, and being wrong in both directions at once is the clearest possible evidence that nobody could maintain it.
Its claims about others could not be verified. Fifteen rows asserting what two competitors do and do not have, with no date and no source. Some were probably right when written. Some were probably wrong within a month, because those products ship too. And a "no" about someone else's product is the single most fragile claim a page can make: they fix it, your page does not notice, and you are publishing something untrue about a named company.
The prices had the same problem — two figures with no date attached, in a market where pricing changes several times a year.
Why removed rather than fixed
Fixing it means committing to re-verify fifteen rows across several products on a schedule, forever, and putting a date on every cell. Nobody does that. The tables you see are written once and left.
We could also have kept it and added checked_at to every row, which is our own standard for claims about third parties. That would have been honest, and it would have decayed anyway the first month somebody was busy — and a decayed table with a date on it is worse than none, because the date lends it authority.
So the choice was between maintaining something we would not maintain, or removing it. The questions instead do not go stale, because they are about mechanisms rather than feature lists.
How to read anyone else's table
Not "is this accurate" — you cannot check that. Ask instead:
Is there a date on the claims? No date means no verification, whatever the ticks say.
Are the crosses about features, or about the vendor's opinion? "No AI analysis" versus "limited AI analysis" is the difference between a fact and a judgement dressed as one.
Does the author's own column have any crosses? A table with none is not a comparison. Ours had three honest ones and still managed to be wrong twice in our favour.
Are prices dated? In this market an undated price is a guess about the past.
What we do instead
Say what our tools can and cannot see, in specific terms, on the pages where it matters — what a statement hides, how each metric is computed, what the import can and cannot hold.
That is checkable by anyone with a file, which a grid never is.