For product reviews, I've been using GearLab (https://www.techgearlab.com/) for years with pretty reliable results. I have no affiliation with them.
Amazon nowadays is such a crapshoot. A link to a product isn’t reliable. The price could be different than what the review stated, and the link might be for an listing that shows as out of stock. I think GearLab tries to fix this by giving you a link to search results on Amazon instead, but in some ways that’s worse. In the couple of links I tried the reviewed product wasn’t the top result so now it’s up to you to decide which of the links is the real one.
That loses some of the value prop for me because part of what I want from a service like this is to give me a link to a legit product listing. That’s not GearLab’s fault, Amazon makes that very difficult, but it still reduces the utility for me. That said it’s better than nothing which just points to the sad state of affairs in e-commerce today.
Edit: it looks like at least some of their links take you directly to the product page. Not sure why some of them take you to a search results page instead, but my guess is it’s an issue with expiring links.
No Ads, No Freebies, No Promotion
We refuse to accept any manufacturer's free evaluation units, and we do not accept any paid endorsements. Our focus is strictly on creating content for the benefit of our readers, and we align our business model to focus on our reader's interests.
> When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission, which helps support our testing.
That’s what the parent comment was referring to
That's an interesting development. I was under the impression that outside of larger retailers, affiliate codes weren't as common.
I'm curious then why did techgearlab not choose to review the matic which is certainly a new interesting player in the robot vaccuum game. I'll have to reach out!
For the minority of products that are only sold directly by the manufacturer (which includes Matic), yes, I think it would be very unusual not to have an affiliate program. Matic even has a crappy one for consumers. For one thing, YouTubers, who keep absolutely no distance between business and editorial, aren’t gonna talk about your product unless they can put an affiliate link in the description. Sometimes manufacturers will use something like Impact, other times a publisher will need to reach out directly.
I pay for Consumer Reports, since you actually need a paid subscription to access the data, which makes sense structurally. I don't really know if the reviews are any good, though I've been relatively happy with it. I also paid a subscription for an independent supplement testing lab, but I forget what it's called at the moment.
Yes, they work on an affiliated model. From their About[0] page:
How We Make Money
GearLab is a free service that is entirely reader-supported. We select and review products objectively and independently. We only make money when you click on our affiliate links and buy products we've reviewed, which helps support our testing work.
If you click on a retailer's link on our site and make any purchase, the retailer will contribute a portion of the sale to help support this site. It won't cost you anything extra, and it's a simple way to help us fund our gear reviews. Thanks for your support of our work!
Why would you assume any website is immune to this problem of bots and fake or paid reviews? Bots are so cheap now and smart enough to pass as realistic humans.
Even with good intentions, money runs out eventually (they say no ads and no sponsored content) and someone with deep pockets will exploit this.
Eventually everyone will just have to implement the foolproof solution of putting in the rules that saying that their website has a problem is "a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills" and be done with it.
I understand how they operate (it's in the middle of their main page) but that actually makes it more difficult for them. The site commits to test thousands of products each year and they don't do sponsored content, free samples, or ads.
They're walking on a beaten path, see Rtings [0] (even the methodology and visual style, which is a good thing). Everyone eventually needs to look for alternative revenue streams to support themselves especially when the competition is fierce and doesn't always play fair. Affiliate link revenue via Amazon.com is not a reliable long term financing strategy for a review website which has to constantly purchase new stuff and pay qualified reviewers.
Most people search the local market for the product and buy the best deal. It doesn't need to be Amazon.com and in many cases, it can't.
[0] https://www.rtings.com/company/revamping-our-membership-prog...
> Wirecutter is a cash cow for the Times
Wikipedia says the Wirecutter implemented a metered paywall a few years ago as additional source of financing. With the weight of the Times behind them they branched into other areas like podcasts and partnerships with countless other sites. This fits well into what I said in my earlier comment. Running this kind of business is hard and someone with deeper pockets will find an interest in it.
Just a few years after founding and shortly before selling to the Times for 1 year's worth of revenue, Wirecutter trialed a deal with Amazon for sponsored posts, along with exploring other revenue streams [2] like kickbacks.
> if you can keep people's trust
Trustworthiness and money don't always go hand in hand. Facebook is a cash cow and keeps people's trust as they keep coming back. Would you call it a trusted source of information? I remember the pendulum swinging against Wirecutter shortly after the sale. And plenty of reports since [1][2].
Rtings is the authoritative source for reviewing anything with a screen and they struggled financially, having to implement a subscription model.
And at the end of the day, taking Wirecutter as an indisputably trustworthy authority in consumer reviews, anyone else on the market has to compete with them with 2 possible options when reviews go head to head: agree and just be an echo, or contradict and go against the indisputably trustworthy authority. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.
Maybe I'm, too cynical but the rug has been pulled from under me too many times to count by things that started out trustworthy than found the need or just the allure of money. With the internet only becoming more trustworthy over these past years I'm sure I have no reason to worry, right?
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/wirec...
[2] https://www.xdesk.com/wirecutter-standing-desk-review-pay-to...
1. Wirecutter has to review everything. GearLab is more limited; they steer clear of non-technical clothing and their tech arm doesn't even really do camera reviews. They obviously know to avoid categories where there are established review sites that most buyers are loyal to. If Wirecutter misses a category, people will complain - that's the curse of being the "everything" site. Rtings has a similar issue.
2. Wirecutter reviewers work for the Times and are unionized; GearLab hires freelancers.
3. The Times is relying on Wirecutter (alongside Games) to prop up their journalism, which is the spiritual core of their business, and the only part that clearly contributes something to society, but struggles to make money on its own. Putting Wirecutter behind the NYT paywall makes people more likely to sign up for a NYT subscription. GearLab isn't paying for any journalists' pensions.
Wirecutter affiliate links make the Times something like $60-70 million per quarter [1].
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/business/media/new-york-t...