The most valuable contributors to SaaSComparely are people who write from direct experience with the software they cover. That might mean you have spent three years as a HubSpot administrator and have a deeply nuanced view of where it performs well and where it falls apart. It might mean you run a marketing agency and have migrated clients between five different project management tools. It might mean you are a product manager who has evaluated automation platforms across three different company sizes.

We are less interested in polished writing than we are in credible perspective. A clearly structured analysis from someone who has genuinely used the software will always outperform a well-crafted article from someone who compiled their view from other articles.

Content Categories We Accept

Software Comparisons: Head-to-head analysis of two tools that compete for the same use case, evaluated from the perspective of a specific type of buyer or team context. We want comparisons that declare a winner and explain why, not balanced reviews that avoid a conclusion.

Tool Reviews: In-depth evaluations of a single platform covering core functionality, pricing structure, onboarding experience, integration ecosystem, and real limitations. Reviews that only cover what is in the product documentation are not useful to our readers.

Buyer’s Guides: Category-level guides that help readers understand what to look for in a type of software before they start evaluating specific products. These are particularly valuable for categories our readers are less familiar with.

Use-Case Roundups: Lists of tools evaluated for a specific context — not generic ‘best CRM’ lists, but articles like ‘Best CRM for a six-person outbound sales team with no dedicated operations support’ that match tools to real deployment scenarios.

Operational Analysis: Articles that go beyond the product itself to address implementation, migration, adoption, or total cost of ownership. These pieces are rare and extremely valuable to our readers.

Content Standards

Every submission must meet the following standards before we will consider it for publication.

• Minimum 1,500 words. Most accepted pieces run between 1,800 and 2,800 words depending on scope.
• Written from direct experience with the tool or tools being covered. We will ask about your background with the software during the pitch review.
• 100% original content, not published anywhere else including your own site or newsletter at any point.
• Factually accurate and current. We will verify feature claims and pricing before publication. If your information is outdated, the article will be returned.
• Clear conclusion. We do not publish non-committal comparison articles that leave readers exactly where they started. Your piece must take a position and support it with evidence.
• No vendor-provided copy. If a paragraph reads like it came from a press release or product documentation, it will not pass editorial review.
• No promotional or affiliate links embedded in the article body. Contributor bios may link to your professional site.

What We Do Not Accept

• Generic ‘X best tools for Y’ lists that simply compile features from public documentation without first-hand evaluation.
• Content written on behalf of a software vendor or their PR agency — we treat these as conflicts of interest regardless of disclosure.
• AI-generated articles submitted without meaningful human expertise layered throughout. We can identify these and we do not publish them.
• Articles covering categories outside our editorial scope: consumer apps, gaming software, hardware, cybersecurity as a standalone topic, or financial products.
• Duplicate or repurposed content from your existing blog, newsletter, or any other publication.

Backlinks and Attribution

Accepted contributors may include up to two do-follow backlinks per article. Links must point to pages genuinely relevant to the article topic. Links to homepages, unrelated service pages, or low-authority domains will be removed before publication. Your author bio may include a link to your professional website or LinkedIn profile.

How to Pitch

Send your pitch to info@saascomparely.org with the subject line: Contributor Pitch — [Proposed Title].

Your pitch should include your proposed article title and a 150–200 word description of your angle, your conclusion, and why this comparison or review adds something that does not already exist on our site. Include a brief summary of your direct experience with the tool or tools you plan to cover. Include two or three links to previously published writing. Include the backlink URLs and anchor text you are requesting.

We review pitches within 5–7 business days. Full article review after submission takes 7–10 business days. We provide specific feedback on revisions when requested