Why you can trust us: Testing Methodology & Editorial policy
AI Tools SME - Publisher Information
Transparency & Publisher Disclosure
We do not accept guest posts to maintain editorial integrity and consistency. We also do not accept paid link insertions into existing blog posts or other content. All links within our content serve our readers' interests and editorial purposes only.
Testing Standards:
Standard Test Prompts:
For detailed information about our testing approach, please see our Testing Methodology page at https://www.aitoolssme.com/methodology-explained.
We use AI as a supporting tool to enhance our content creation process while maintaining human oversight, originality, and editorial integrity. All strategic decisions, insights, and opinions originate from human expertise.
AI Disclosure: We use AI to generate text, but the insights come from us only.
Quality Control: All AI-assisted content is reviewed and fact-checked by human editors to ensure accuracy, relevance, and alignment with our editorial standards.
Testing Integrity: No AI simulation of results—only real, hands-on testing data.
What We Use AI For:
What We DO NOT Use AI For:
For complete details about our AI usage policies, tools, and transparency standards, please see our page "How We Use AI"
Voice & Tone: Conversational, user-friendly, non-technical approach from a marketing perspective, in simple English (non-natives should easily comprehend it too).
Style: Engaging and human.
Language: Available in English.
SEO: Optimized for discoverability while maintaining readability.
Review Frequency:
We balance introducing new tools with maintaining coverage depth. For our full review schedule and criteria, visit our Testing Methodology page at https://www.aitoolssme.com/methodology-explained.
Lili Marocsik, Chief Publisher, makes all final decisions on what gets published, which tools will be tested, which partnerships are entered, and which contributors can review tools for AI Tools SME.
Content must meet the following standards:
Chief Publisher: Lili Marocsik makes all editorial decisions regarding content, tool selection, partnerships, and contributor approval.
Expert Contributors: Contributors must have a proven track record in their specialized field, demonstrated through either extensive years of using similar tools or professional expertise in relevant areas. We typically approach contributors directly based on their documented expertise.
Quality Control: All content undergoes review by Lili Marocsik to ensure consistency with editorial standards and testing methodology.
AI tool companies can pay us to review their tool, which we otherwise would not have reviewed or added to our comparisons or AI tools lists. However, payment for a review does not guarantee a positive review.
We emphasize this policy on our "Submit Your Tool" page and during all client communication. We inform potential clients upfront that every good review consists of both positive and negative points. Our readers want to know about limitations as well as strengths, and AI Tools SME is first and foremost accountable to its readers.
All reviews—whether paid or organic—are independently conducted and hand-tested according to our standard methodology. Financial relationships do not influence our evaluation criteria, testing process, or editorial judgments.
All AI tools within our comparisons are hand-tested by either Lili Marocsik herself or contributors who are experts within niche fields. All insights about tools and ideas about AI tool categories or their future are our own.
We do not use AI to summarize other pages' content. As a result, we maintain a limited but thoroughly vetted selection of AI tools on our website, especially compared to our competitors. This approach ensures that every tool listing represents genuine, firsthand evaluation.
As we constantly re-test tools—especially in the areas of image, video, and presentation generators—we refresh content regularly within comparisons, blog content, detailed reviews, and FAQs.
Within Comparisons:
Blog Content and Detailed Reviews:
Significant errors are handled through a strict review process. If we notice we've made a mistake, we review all generated material. We first trust our own assessment and then consider feedback from clients or users.
If we determine that we've made an error—for example, by adding incorrect price structures—we review and correct them as soon as possible. We are committed to ensuring that our website is at all times up-to-date and truthful.
When we cite a source in our blog post, comparison, or detailed review, we ensure to name the quote and link to the page source.
In almost all cases, the screenshots we make of a tool dashboard are created by us during the review process. Only in rare cases do we take screenshots from the AI tool company themselves—for example, if we missed taking a screenshot and the credits within a platform ran out.
We also use AI-generated images, especially for the image generator comparison, to showcase the quality of the generator. All images are generated by us and may be reused with clear attribution to aitoolssme.com by other users.
We prioritize tools that we hear and see frequently, whether on Google search pages, at our AI meetups, or on social media. We are also more inclined to test tools when we learn about special or new features.
We refrain from reviewing tools that are:
Immediate reviews are only conducted for highly anticipated AI tools from established players, particularly those with innovative character. For example, when Veo 3 was released as the first video generator with audio capabilities, it qualified as an immediate review due to its groundbreaking features.
For our complete review schedule by category, please visit our Testing Methodology page at https://www.aitoolssme.com/methodology-explained.
We document our testing results within our Airtable database, where we also note when the last test has taken place.
We currently do not archive test data but rather overwrite it. Because AI tools constantly evolve and improve, we prioritize showing current developments rather than holding on to outdated information.
We always use the same review dashboards, which require us to enter consistent input data such as:
Additional factors depend on the AI tool category and relevance, such as AI voice quality or design capabilities.
Honest Reviews: We tell our readers the truth about every AI tool, even when delivering criticism is difficult.
Balanced Coverage: Although we work with affiliate programs, we remain unbiased. Our readers can see this balance reflected throughout our comparison rankings.
No Hype Policy: Social media is full of misleading content about AI. We show our readers all sides.
We comply with German/EU data protection standards.
Clear identification of monetized content through disclaimers in blog posts and comparison pages.
We maintain appropriate licensing for testing and reviewing AI tools.
We do not currently allow comments on our website because we don't want to give room to manipulation and tool ranking skewing.
All discussion takes place on our social media platforms, where users have the opportunity to share their opinions about tools. Reddit and YouTube are also channels we use for community engagement.
User inquiries directed to us are answered in a timely manner, typically within approximately 2-3 days.
We listen to complaints from companies attentively. If a complaint sounds fair, we will re-review the tool with the feedback in mind that the client has given us. We may even retest some competitor tools to provide a fair comparison.
However, if we still believe that the original review was fair and accurate, we refrain from changing it.
It depends on what the user complains about. If it concerns one of our AI tool reviews, we are not influenceable and refrain from making changes based on external pressure. If there is something else on our website they complain about, we consider it on a case-by-case basis, always striving to be fair and reasonable.
We do not currently have a formal appeal mechanism in place. We see it as our duty to create honest and unbiased reviews, and we are the advocate of the user—not the AI tool company.
We understand that our reviews can be challenging for companies to receive, but maintaining honesty and integrity is fundamental to our mission. When we deliver constructive criticism, we inform companies that we conduct regular re-evaluations every few months, providing them with fresh opportunities to demonstrate improvements and innovations.
We also welcome proactive communication from companies who wish to highlight new features or capabilities they'd like us to evaluate in our upcoming reviews.
We encourage open dialogue with AI tool developers regarding feature updates and product improvements, while steadfastly maintaining our editorial independence and commitment to unbiased reviews.
Last Updated: November 11, 2025
Major Changes:
This editorial policy reflects our unwavering commitment to delivering honest, practical AI tool reviews that empower small business owners with the insights necessary to make informed decisions about AI implementation in their operations.
