Honest side-by-sides — including where our product loses

Frequently asked

1. How do you choose which products to compare?

   ▾

   We compare pairs that enterprise buyers actually shortlist against each other, which is usually two vendors solving the same job from different architectural starting points. The trigger is a real evaluation: a pair shows up in three or more buyer conversations, or a market event (an acquisition, a repackaging, a pricing change) makes every existing comparison on the web stale. We do not publish a comparison because a keyword looks winnable.

2. Do you compare Jarvis against competitors, and can that be neutral?

   ▾

   Yes, and the honest answer is that we cannot be fully neutral — ASCENDING builds Jarvis. What we can do is make the bias inspectable. Every page that includes Jarvis opens with a disclosure banner, marks the Jarvis row in every table, and states the categories where Jarvis loses. Our MCP gateway evaluation scored ten gateways on ten documented criteria and Jarvis Registry finished last; we published that unchanged.

3. How often are the comparisons updated?

   ▾

   Every entry carries a visible date. We refresh a comparison when a priced or contractual fact changes — a seat price, a bundling change, a minimum, an acquisition — rather than on a calendar. Vendor pricing in this category moved several times during 2026, so treat any comparison whose date is more than two quarters old as a starting point and verify the numbers with the vendor before signing.

4. Where do the numbers in the tables come from?

   ▾

   Public vendor documentation and pricing pages, AWS Marketplace listings, filed financial disclosures, regulator and standards-body publications, and named analyst commentary. Each is cited inline with a link you can open. Where a widely repeated figure traces only to a competitor's blog or a partner post, we say so and label it as such rather than presenting it as a vendor fact.

5. What do you do when a vendor disputes a claim?

   ▾

   We correct it if the vendor can point at documentation that contradicts what we published, and we date the correction. If the disagreement is about interpretation rather than fact, we leave the claim and add the vendor's position alongside it. We do not remove unfavourable findings in exchange for access, and we do not accept vendor payment for placement in any comparison.