Editorial policy
A site that calls itself Best Cross Posting is going to make recommendations. This is the method behind them.
What we actually did
We compared the current published documentation, pricing pages and terms of use of every product on this site, and recorded the date and the URL for each claim. That is the method. We have not run 27 tools for 300 hours in a lab, and we are not going to write that sentence because it sounds better.
Where a claim comes from hands-on use, we say so in the page. Where it comes from a vendor’s own page, we link the page. Where we could not confirm something either way, the tables say “Not verified” — which is a statement about our research, not about the product.
What gets verified, per product
- Current pricing, per plan, and how the vendor charges (flat, per channel, per account)
- Free plan and free trial terms, including whether a card is required
- Supported networks, exactly as listed by the vendor
- Scheduling, auto-posting, cross-posting and source-triggered automation
- Repurposing, watermark handling and backfill of older posts
- Multiple accounts on the same network
- Calendar, analytics, approval workflows and inbox
All of it lives in structured data files rather than in article text, so a price appears in exactly one place in this codebase and updating it updates every page at once. Nobody has to remember which of fifty articles quoted a number.
How often we re-check
Product data on this site was last verified in August 2026. Every page that states a price or a feature carries its own “last checked” line, near the top, where you will actually see it.
Anything older than 90 days is flagged by a build-time report. Past that threshold the site stops printing specific prices and shows “check current pricing” instead. A missing number is annoying; a confidently wrong one is worse.
How we rank
We do not publish a single ordered list of best-to-worst, because these products are not competing for the same job. We award categories — best for automatic cross-posting, best for repurposing, best for planning, best for teams — and the criteria behind them are:
- How many destinations the tool actually publishes to
- How deep the automation goes: scheduled, triggered, or transformed
- How much setup stands between signing up and the first automated post
- Support for several accounts on one network
- Whether existing content can be backfilled
- Publishing speed and any fair-use ceilings
- Price, trial terms, and what the entry tier really includes
- Who the product is built for
We do not publish numeric scores out of ten. A 8.4 implies a measurement we did not take.
What we will not publish
- Features no vendor claims, for any product, ours or a competitor’s
- Invented limitations, to make a preferred tool look better by contrast
- Testimonials, user counts or ratings we cannot source
- Star ratings in structured data that no rating programme produced
- Countdown timers or discounts that do not exist
- Claims that a platform’s algorithm penalises cross-posted content, unless a current, authoritative source says so
- Statistics with a decimal point and no citation. “Posting at 6pm gets 37% more engagement” is a sentence that has never once been checked by the person repeating it.
Commercial relationships
Best Cross Posting is operated by the same team as Postpari, and we benefit when readers sign up. That is stated on every page that recommends it, next to the recommendation, not buried in the footer. The full disclosure is here.
Corrections
If a price, a plan limit, a supported network or a feature on this site is wrong, we want to know — and it is the most likely kind of error here, because the underlying products change without telling us. Send us the page and what is wrong with it. We fix the data file, which fixes every page that uses it, and update the check date.