Disclosure: who funds EditorStack and what it changes
EditorStack is funded by GJS.Market, which sells plugins and templates for GrapesJS. This page states exactly what that relationship covers, which entries it touches, and the specific rules that stop it from bending the data.
TL;DR
- EditorStack is funded and operated by the team behind GJS.Market, a marketplace selling plugins, templates and AI tools for GrapesJS.
- Three products in the dataset are affected by that relationship — GrapesJS, GrapesJS Studio SDK and PageKit — and each of those pages prints a conflict-of-interest notice above its content.
- No vendor, including our funder, can pay for placement, a score, a capability flag or a position in the comparison table; there are no affiliate commissions from any product in the dataset.
The relationship, stated plainly
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, scores, capability flags, table position, or the wording of a verdict.
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 score our funder's commercial products. GrapesJS Studio SDK and PageKit carry no score, for the same reason no other commercial SDK does: we have not run them hands-on under our own test procedure.
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.
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.
Written by the EditorStack Research Team. How we test and what we refuse to publish is on the methodology page.