Ten SMM panels measured on nine public criteria, October 2026

By Zane Roberts. Last updated: 19 October 2026

Method: 10 panels checked against 9 published criteria, all on 1 October 2026. Source: The public, logged-out pages of each panel: homepage, terms, services page, contact page and /api, archived at the moment of reading, plus an RDAP query per domain.

The operator, measured and not ranked

This site is operated by the team behind Boostero, so Boostero is measured on the same criteria, on the same day, from the same kind of pages, and is left out of the ranked order. That is a recusal and not an adjustment: no cell and no score below is changed by it, and the figure in the Score column is the same formula applied to the same results. It was decided on 5 October 2026, after this measurement was taken.

pass adds the criterion's weight to the score; fail and unverified add nothing. Every cell that is not a pass carries its reason: what the page said instead of a pass, or why it could not be read. Unverified results are counted in their own column. The number under each criterion is its weight. Superlatives counted and Domain age in years are measured values published beside the score, not part of it.

Where a review of a single panel is written, it is listed on the reviews page. Every page read is archived at the moment of reading; the copies are under snapshots.

This audit measures what ten SMM panels say about themselves in public. The nine criteria were published on 18 September 2026, before any panel was read. All ten panels were read on one day, 1 October 2026, logged out, with no account and no purchase.

Boostero is operated by the team that publishes this site. It was read on the same nine criteria, on the same day, by the same method as the other nine panels, and it is not ranked. Its result is printed beside the table with its three fails and their reasons: 75 points, six criteria of nine. The numbered order runs one to nine without it. By those criteria Boostero scored higher than the first-ranked panel, which has 65, and the formula would have placed it first.

That decision was taken on 5 October 2026, four days after the measurement, with the scores already in front of us. Until then the rule was the opposite: wherever the formula put our own panel is where it would go, first place included. What changed it is that a score and a position are not the same kind of claim. Every cell names a criterion, a page and that page's hash, so a reader who disagrees can open the archived copy and show us wrong. A position is not a reading of anything: it is the place we award ourselves at the top of our own list, and no archived page can correct it. So the reading is published and the placement is not. The criteria, the weights and the formula are the ones published on 18 September and none of them was touched. Changing a rule after seeing the result it produces is a fault of its own, and it is written here rather than left out.

Two readings on our own pages decide that score, and below them is every change we made to our own pages around the measurement, here rather than after the table.

The reading. The services criterion is a word search followed by a judgement, and on our own catalogue the search produced three hits the judgement did not count: a service that audits the buyer's own website, and two category headings standing above rows that sell Reddit upvotes and Facebook group members. The rule for that judgement was set on 1 October, before any result was published, is on the methodology page, and was applied to all ten panels; it turned over one proposal, ours. It is worth 15 points. Without it Boostero scores 60, below MoreThanPanel at 65.

The change the day before. On 30 September, after a rehearsal of this measurement had read our catalogue and listed them, Boostero switched off sixteen services aimed at third parties or at review platforms: nine Trustpilot review services, Google Business Reviews, Facebook Page Reviews, YouTube Dislikes, Telegram Dislike, Telegram Negative Mix Reactions, Reddit Downvotes and Reddit Comment Downvotes. They were switched off because they should not be sold. They were also switched off the day before the measurement, and no other panel saw its rehearsal result. On the catalogue as it stood on 30 September, Boostero fails the services criterion with no judgement needed and scores 60 rather than 75, which is below MoreThanPanel's 65. The ranked order of the other nine panels is the same on either catalogue.

Both catalogues are archived. The one read on 30 September at 10:10 UTC, SHA-256 de147783bc796a98d78ea98d8925378990eb23e5aa2cf59fb9a2f9eb13d46b2f, carries all sixteen services in priced rows. The one read on 1 October at 13:26 UTC, SHA-256 6c5b62f5b5e2ee5b79ae2b76f83cf97c2d5b178a51c0d1a961461c9bcee54a66, carries none of them. The October result is taken from the second, on the same criteria as every other panel.

Every change to Boostero's pages around this measurement

Each line says whether the change moved a cell in the table below.

I read four of the criteria myself: whether the large numbers on a homepage agree with each other, whether a homepage promise survives the terms of service, whether the refund clause states a condition, and what the terms say about an unused balance. A script pulled the other five from the same archived pages under my review: the catalogue, services aimed at other people's accounts, refill terms, the contact channel, and domain age from RDAP. Where the script proposed a result, I confirmed it against the page before it was published, and where I overruled it the article says so.

How to read this table

An unverified result is not a fail: it means the page could not be read, the reason is printed on the cell, and it adds nothing either way, exactly as a fail does. A score is the sum of the weights of the criteria a panel passes, so the highest possible score is 100. Where two panels score the same, the place goes to the one with fewer unverified results, then to the one that passes more criteria, then to alphabetical order.

What the criteria measure and why

Self-consistency carries 10. The large numbers on a homepage are what a buyer reads first: an order count, a customer count, a claim about years in business. The check is narrow. Do those numbers agree with each other on the same page on the same day, or does one of them rule another out.

Services aimed at third parties carries 15. The catalogue is searched for report, negative, dislike, downvote and review, and every hit is read in place, because the same word can sit in a service name or in a sentence about the panel itself. What the criterion looks for is a service sold against someone else's account or business: reports that get a profile restricted, negative reviews ordered by the dozen. A reseller who forwards one of those orders carries the consequence, and most resellers have never scrolled that far down a supplier's list.

Refill terms carries 15. Refill is a condition with three parts: a window, a trigger and a scope. The criterion asks whether a window and a trigger are stated where a buyer reaches them before paying. Not whether the word refill appears, which it almost always does, and not whether the panel honours it, which a public page cannot show.

Promise versus terms carries 15. A homepage that promises a result in those words, or calls the service safe, and terms of service that disclaim any guarantee of results or permanence, are two documents about one product that do not agree. The terms are the document a panel points to when a claim is tested, so both get read, and the criterion records whether they contradict each other.

Catalogue visible carries 15. Can the service list and the rates per 1000 be read while logged out, with no deposit and no registration. Our own interest is most direct here, because this site is operated by the team behind one of the panels being measured. That is why the selection rule locked on 16 September made a prepaid balance the condition of entry and left the public catalogue as a scored criterion. A condition of entry decides who gets measured at all, and that decision should not turn on a question we also score.

Refund conditions carries 10. Terms that say no refunds have answered the question. What the criterion looks for is the other kind: at least one stated condition under which money comes back, and what it comes back as, balance or payment.

Balance terms carries 10. Money sitting on a panel raises three questions. Can the unused part be recovered, does it expire, and what happens to it if the account is closed. Two of the three answered in the terms is a pass, because panels that answer none are common enough that requiring all three would separate nobody.

Contact without an account carries 5. An email address or a form reachable while logged out, with a response time stated beside it. Availability around the clock is not a response time and is not read as one: it says when someone is there, not when they answer.

Domain age carries 5, the smallest weight in the set, and deliberately so. Age is not quality and a new domain is not a warning by itself. It is measured by an RDAP query for the registration date, with five years or more counted as a pass, and it is in the audit because it is the only fact here that no panel writes about itself.

Where the panels differ most

The criterion almost every panel fails is also the one that costs least to satisfy. Nine of ten fail contact without an account, worth 5 points, and almost all of them for the same reason: availability stated around the clock, an answering time never stated. Naizop is the one pass, on a sentence in its own words: "We respond to all support tickets within 12 hours or less", archived here. Two panels have no contact page at any address this audit tried, smmfollows and justanotherpanel, and smmwiz answers /support with a sign-in wall.

Balance terms are the next widest, at 10 points. Seven of ten fail, because the criterion asks the three questions above and most terms answer one. Just Another Panel and MoreThanPanel pass, both by answering the recovery and the closure questions, and MoreThanPanel is alone in stating in its refund policy that deposits do not expire. Nobody answers all three.

The catalogue criterion splits the set in a way worth stating plainly: six of ten fail, and five of those fail because their services URL answers with the homepage rather than a list. Those five, smmfollows, justanotherpanel, yoyomedia, bulkfollows and peakerr, were opened by hand, logged out, before the fail was recorded; none of them shows a service list and rates per 1000 without an account. The four that pass print rates in the page as served: 1,582 rate figures on Boostero's list, 1,933 on prm4u's, 4,158 on MoreThanPanel's (gzip) and 7,920 on smmwiz's (gzip).

Services aimed at third parties is where the archive runs out rather than where the panels differ. Four of ten fail on named services: MoreThanPanel sells "Google Custom Reviews" and "TrustPilot Reviews | Global | Custom | 60 Day Refill | 1 to 5-Star | Max 100" in 231 rows, prm4u sells "Instagram Report/Complain - [Profile/Post/Comment]" at $50 and the same for four other platforms, spelling Complain with a Cyrillic C in each, smmwiz sells "Buy Instagram Negative Comments", and naizop publishes report bots for nine platforms as named pages. Five of ten are unverified, because the catalogue that would have to be searched was never reached, and one passes. A reader should treat those five as unread rather than as clean.

Superlatives

The Superlatives counted column is a count of six words on each homepage, taken from the criteria file: "best, cheapest, #1, fastest, most trusted, guaranteed", counted where a panel applies them to itself. It is published beside the score and is not part of it, because a word count measures how a page is written and not what a panel does. A quoted superlative about someone else, and a word inside a service name supplied by an upstream provider, are not counted.

The three highest counts begin in the page title itself. Peakerr has 69, under the title "SMM Panel : Best & Cheapest SMM Services Provider", archived here. MoreThanPanel has 49, titled "Best SMM Panel - Cheapest and Easiest Social Media Panel". Smmfollows has 39, titled "SMM Panel : World's Best and Cheapest SMM Provider Services". The three lowest are Boostero with 2, naizop with 6 and prm4u with 9, and the pattern there is the same as in the high three: the words sit in the title and the first screen rather than deeper in the page.

Legal identity

Four of the ten name a legal entity and a jurisdiction in the pages this audit read: MoreThanPanel, whose terms are "operated by MTP SOLUTIONS LTD [UK], HYPERTRUST DIGITAL - FZCO [UAE], and MTP DIGITAL LTD [Turkey]"; bulkfollows, "Emam Media LTD Registered in England & Wales, Company No. 11855473"; peakerr, whose footer names "DIGITAL SOFTTECH LIMITED" at a London address with "Company No: 14815184"; and prm4u, which names Alliance Torg Company LLC with a company address in Bishkek. Boostero is not among the four, and nor are the other five. This finding is reported as a sentence and is not scored, because it does not separate the set in a way a weight could carry.

Compared with a list the same team published earlier

Seven of these panels also appear in a comparison list published on Boostero's blog on 10 September 2026, which ranks Boostero first: Naizop, SMMFollows, Just Another Panel, MoreThanPanel, Boostero, Peakerr and Smmwiz, read from the panel list locked on 16 September and not from a measurement. That list is not an audit and nothing here is read against it: it was not made under the criteria, the weights or the archive rules on this page, and no result in it links the page it came from. It is named because the same team published it and a reader who meets both should know which is which, not as a baseline.

What we did not measure

Delivery. Nothing in this audit says whether an order arrives, how much of it stays, or what the accounts behind it are. The first purchase test, ordered on 22 September 2026 and counted to day 21, is published on 1 November 2026, and until then no ranking on this site uses delivery data.

Account quality. Whether the followers behind a service are real people, bulk-created accounts or something in between is not readable from a public page, and no criterion here pretends otherwise.

Anything behind a login. Terms shown only inside a dashboard, prices shown only after registration and support channels that open only for signed-in users were not read. A panel may state more than this audit could see.

Pages this audit could not read. Nothing answered 403 and nothing timed out, which is unusual enough to say. For the three panels with no readable contact page the criterion rests on what did answer: the homepage and the terms, and for smmfollows the homepage alone, its terms being behind a sign-in too. For the five panels whose services URL answers with the homepage, the services criterion is unverified rather than passed, and the catalogue fail was read by hand rather than by the script.

That asymmetry favours panels whose catalogue is public, and this site operates one of them. A panel whose list is open can be searched and scored; a panel whose list sits behind registration cannot, and the 15 points of the services criterion go unawarded rather than lost. Had those five unverified cells been passes instead, Just Another Panel and MoreThanPanel would lead the ranked nine at 65, and Boostero's unranked score would still be the highest of the ten at 75.

All fifty-three pages that were read are archived with their hashes and each was submitted to the Wayback Machine, which accepted all fifty-three.

The limits of this measurement

This audit measures what ten panels publish about themselves on their public pages, read while logged out on 1 October 2026, and nothing else: not delivery, not retention, and not the quality of the accounts behind any service. The site is operated by the team behind Boostero, which is in the set and measured on the same criteria on the same day, and which is scored but not ranked by a decision taken on 5 October 2026 and explained above the table.

Frequently asked questions

How were the ten panels chosen?

Zane Roberts selected them on 16 September 2026, before any criterion was applied, from a candidate pool of sellers that operate a prepaid balance. The signals were Ahrefs US organic traffic and Ahrefs AI citations; the methodology page publishes every figure with the date it was read, 16 or 18 September 2026, so a figure read after the choice is visible as one. It is an editorial selection, not a formula.

Why is your own panel included?

Because leaving it out would hide it. Boostero is operated by the team that publishes this site, so it sits in the set and is read on the same nine criteria on the same day as the other nine. Its fails are printed like anyone else's. What it does not get is a place in the order: it is scored and not ranked, a decision taken on 5 October 2026 and explained in full above the table. An audit of everyone except ourselves would tell you less; a list with ourselves on top of it would tell you less too.

Why is Media Mister not in the set?

Media Mister sells fixed packages and does not operate a prepaid balance, so it is out of scope for this audit along with SocialWick, PrimeSMM, SubPals and instafollowers.co. The entry condition is the prepaid balance, because every criterion here reads pages that only exist on panels that work that way. Out of scope is not a judgement of the seller.

What does unverified mean?

It means the page could not be read: HTTP 403, a timeout, no such page, or a redirect to a login with nothing behind it. It is not a fail and it is not a pass. It adds nothing to the score, it is counted in its own column, and the reason is printed on the cell. A page that reads and does not carry what the criterion asks for is a fail.

Can a panel change its score?

Only by changing what its public pages say, and only for the next measurement. Nothing here is for sale: no advertising, no sponsorship and no paid placement. No panel is told its result before publication, with the one exception this site cannot avoid and states above the table: Boostero's operator runs the audit and sees every reading, which is why Boostero is scored and not ranked. The score is the sum of the weights of the criteria a panel passes, and each criterion states what counts as a pass, so any of them can be repeated from outside.

How often is this refreshed?

The audit of public pages is repeated quarterly, on 1 January 2027 and 1 April 2027, and each quarter's version is frozen at its own URL before the next one replaces it. Delivery tests are published as each one finishes, starting on 1 November 2026. The two scores stand side by side and are never added together.

Where are the snapshots?

Every page this audit read was fetched as raw HTML at the moment of reading and stored with its time, its HTTP status and the SHA-256 of its bytes. The copies are linked from each row of the table and listed under /snapshots/, and each URL is also submitted to the Wayback Machine. A panel that says it never published something can be shown the copy from the day it was read.

How do I report an error?

Write to the address on the contact page with the panel, the criterion and what you say is wrong. Each reading is archived, so the page as it stood on 1 October 2026 can be compared with the claim. If the reading was wrong, the article is corrected and the change is logged with its date on the corrections page. The author decides, and both the request and the outcome are published.