Disclosure: who funds EditorStack and what it changes

The relationship, stated plainly

EditorStack is operated and maintained by the team behind GJS.Market. Product data and methodology are documented publicly: the dataset, the methodology and the code that builds this site are open.

This site is paid for by GJS.Market, which sells plugins, templates and AI tools for GrapesJS, and by PageKit, a commercial self-hosted builder from the same team. The people who run that business commissioned this site and pay for the time that goes into it.

That funding buys three things: the engineering time to build and maintain the site, the machine time to run the benchmarks, and the research time to verify facts about 34 products, most of which compete with our funder.

It does not buy placement, ratings, capability flags, table position, Editor Finder ranking, or the wording of a comparison.

Which entries are affected

Three entries in the dataset carry a commercial interest for us:

• GrapesJS — the open-source engine our funder's products extend.
• GrapesJS Studio SDK — a commercial product from the GrapesJS team.
• PageKit — our funder's own product.

Each of those pages prints a conflict-of-interest notice before the content, generated from a flag in the dataset. The build fails if that flag is removed from an affected entry, which means the disclosure cannot be quietly dropped in a future edit.

PageKit's pricing deserves a second line: the tiers we publish are vendor-stated, we could not verify them against an independent source, and the vendor is our funder. We say so on the page.

The rules that hold the line

Limitations are mandatory, and longest where we are conflicted. Every review has a Limitations section. GrapesJS's is the longest on the site, and it leads with the measurement that is least flattering to it: 294.6 kB gzip, among the largest bundles we measured.

Measurements are run by a script and checked by the build. We cannot round our funder's number down, because the published figure is compared against the measurement file at build time.

We do not rate our funder's commercial products. GrapesJS Studio SDK and PageKit carry no editorial ratings, for the same reason no other commercial SDK does: we have not run them hands-on under our own test procedure. There is no overall score for any product.

The Editor Finder has no weighting. Results are ordered by how many of your stated requirements the dataset says a product meets, then alphabetically. The ordering code is public and is tested against fixed cases in CI; there is no field in the dataset that could promote a product.

The calculator is allowed to say no. The build-versus-buy calculator returns "building is cheaper" whenever the arithmetic supports it, including against PageKit and the Studio SDK.

Where GJS.Market appears, exactly. Only where GrapesJS is the subject:

• one disclosed block on the GrapesJS and GrapesJS Studio SDK profiles, driven by the marketplace_url field in the dataset;
• a "plugins" link next to those products in the comparison table, marked rel="sponsored";
• one block at the end of each GrapesJS guide, and in the use cases that discuss building on GrapesJS;
• the export panel of the GrapesJS playground.

There are no sitewide banners and no sidebar advertising units.

Commercial links are marked. Links to GJS.Market and PageKit carry UTM parameters so our funder can see what this site sends them. Advertising placements are marked as sponsor units and use rel="sponsored". Editorial links — a recommendation inside body copy, where we mean it — are normal links, and we do not place them in a section whose conclusion points the other way.

There are no affiliate commissions. We earn nothing when you click through to Builder.io, Plasmic, Unlayer or any other product here. There is no incentive to rank one above another.

Why we publish this rather than bury it

An independent comparison funded by a participant is a legitimate structure and a common one — but only if the reader can see it and check the safeguards. A site that hides its funding gets caught eventually, and everything it published becomes worthless at that moment.

If you find a page where the funding relationship appears to have bent the analysis, that is a bug worth reporting. Open an issue on the repository and it will be answered in public.