We built the directory
we wanted to buy from.

The Problem We Started With

Most placement directories are built to close a sale, not to inform one. Metrics are quoted from whichever tool flatters the listing. Turnaround is "fast". A price typed in months ago sits on the page as though rates never move. Whether the traffic is real is left for the buyer to work out after the invoice clears.

We spent a long time studying how these directories are built before building ours. The consistent pattern was the same: plenty of listings, very little verifiable information attached to any of them.

What We Do Differently

Three things, and they are the reason the listings look the way they do.

1. We publish both traffic figures, not the better one. Every listing shows Ahrefs and Semrush side by side, along with the gap between them and a grade from A to D. A wide divergence is the clearest signal that one source is counting traffic the other cannot verify — so we surface it rather than hide it.
2. We judge against the lower figure. Wherever a listing works from traffic, it works from the smaller of the two readings. The same applies to authority: both scores are published with the gap between them, because a domain strong on one model and weak on the other is telling you something the higher number alone would hide.
3. We put the evidence up front, and no price. Everything we have verified sits on the listing page rather than behind an enquiry: both authority scores with the distance between them, both traffic readings with the grade for the gap, the keyword count, and the facts we read off the domain itself — registration date, platform, AI-crawler policy. Editorial requirements are settled with the publisher and confirmed to you before you commit. Price is the one thing we withhold on purpose rather than for want of an answer — rates change, a figure printed here would be wrong the day a publisher moves theirs, and a stale price is exactly the kind of wrong data the rest of this site exists to avoid. Every listing says “Email for details”, and you get today's figure rather than last month's.

How a Publication Gets Listed

A person opens the site and reads it. We look for a genuine archive rather than a thin one assembled for placements, check that contributed articles already there are indexed and still live, verify the registration date independently, and pull both traffic sources to compare rather than trusting either.

Every figure is re-pulled in one run, so no listing carries a number from a different review than its neighbour. Publications that fall below standard are removed, not quietly demoted — a listing that disappears is more honest than one left up with stale numbers.

What We Are Not

We are not a link network and we do not own the publications we list. We take no position on whether a given placement suits your strategy. What we provide is the information needed to decide, presented the same way for every listing so that comparison is actually possible.

Why You Can Rely On What Is Published Here

A directory cannot make itself trustworthy by saying so. It can only be judged on what it publishes and on what it refuses to publish, so here is the whole of it — and every point below is checkable on any listing you open.

• Both traffic readings, never the better one. Ahrefs and Semrush appear side by side on every listing. A directory that shows one figure is choosing how flattering its listings look; showing both removes that choice from us.
• The disagreement is graded, not smoothed over. Each listing carries the ratio between the two readings and a grade from A to D. 23 of the 25 listings currently carry grade D, the most common grade in the directory today, and they carry it in public rather than being quietly dropped from the directory.
• Anything computed from traffic uses the lower reading. The combined reach on each subject hub adds up the smaller of a site's two figures, and the directory's traffic sort ranks on it. They are floors, not ceilings, and the rule holds on the listings it flatters least.
• The facts come off the domain, not off a submission form. Registration date is read from RDAP. Indexed page count and update cadence come from the publisher's own sitemap. AI-crawler policy is read from robots.txt. Platform and declared language are read from the HTML the site serves. None of it is a number a publisher told us.
• A fact we could not verify is left out, not approximated. Where a check fails, the field is dropped from the listing entirely — no row, no label, nothing standing in its place. A listing here often shows fewer fields than it might, and every field it does show is a measurement.
• Prices are quoted live and never printed. A rate typed onto a page is wrong the day the publisher moves it, and a stale price is the same failure as a stale metric. Every listing says “Email for details”, and the figure you are given is today's.
• Position in the directory is not for sale. The directory orders by Moz DA and lets you reorder it by DR, traffic or domain age; the full index is alphabetical. There is no promoted tier, no paid position, and no field in the data that a publisher could pay to set.
• Every figure carries the date it was checked. Listings are stamped with the date of the last review — 17 Sep 2026 at present — so the age of a number is visible rather than assumed.

None of that asks you to take our word for anything. Look up a registration date yourself, or count a publisher's sitemap against the indexed figure we print. The reason the method is written down is so that it can be checked.

Where the Data Comes From

• Domain AuthorityMoz
• Domain RatingAhrefs
• Organic trafficAhrefs and Semrush, both shown
• Registration dateRDAP, at the registry
• Indexed pages, cadencePublisher sitemap
• Platform, AI-crawler policyDirect inspection
• Confidence scoreNewageSpot, computed