Original analysis
What the review record says
We read the public reviews of the apps we compete with, at volume, and publish what they say — including the parts that are inconvenient for us. Method and sample limits are on every page.
Published
Each of these is a single analysis with its own dataset, its own method section, and its own account of what it cannot tell you.
How to read anything in this section
We sell an invoicing app and we are analysing the reviews of apps we compete with. That is a conflict of interest, not a disclaimer that makes one disappear. These four rules are what we do about it, and they are the standard to hold these pages to.
The method is on the page
How the sample was drawn, how it was filtered, and how many candidate findings were thrown away. A number without its denominator is decoration.
The limits are on the page too
Every dataset here is a sample of unknown proportion, and the people who quit in week one do not write reviews. Both facts are stated where the findings are, not in a footnote.
Findings that are inconvenient still get published
Including the ones where a competitor comes out ahead, and the ones where Invoice Tiger does. A research page that only ever concludes in our favour is an advert with a chart on it.
No per-brand league tables
We report category patterns and name products only for facts anyone can check on the vendor’s own page. A ranking built from our sample would be a claim we cannot stand behind.
If you would rather read about invoicing than about the apps that do it, the invoicing guides cover what goes on an invoice, how to number them and what payment terms mean. The invoice app pages cover how Invoice Tiger fits different kinds of work.
Built from the complaints, not the feature list
Invoice Tiger creates invoices and estimates on your iPhone, with no monthly counter and a full export of everything you have ever sent.