GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Agriculture FarmingTop 9 Best Pesticide Record Keeping Software of 2026
Top 10 Pesticide Record Keeping Software ranking for farms and agribusiness teams. Side-by-side notes on AcreValue, Cropio, Taranis.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
AcreValue
API-driven pesticide event ingestion tied to field and crop entities for traceable audit trails.
Built for fits when operations need API-driven pesticide record workflows with governed user access..
Cropio
Editor pickWorkflow-driven pesticide record approvals tied to application events and attachments.
Built for fits when mid-size farms need governed pesticide logging with automation and API-based sync..
Taranis
Editor pickTreatment event schema that ties products, plots, and scouting context into one audit trail.
Built for fits when teams need auditable field-to-treatment records with API integration..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table evaluates pesticide record keeping tools by integration depth, including how each platform connects with farm systems and what API and automation surface it exposes. It also compares each product’s data model and schema for handling pesticide applications and compliance records, plus admin and governance controls like RBAC and audit log coverage. Readers can use the table to weigh throughput, extensibility, and configuration patterns across tools such as AcreValue, Cropio, Taranis, Agworld, and FarmERP.
AcreValue
farm recordsProvides farm record capture that supports field scouting, inputs, and compliance-style documentation workflows with exportable data structures.
API-driven pesticide event ingestion tied to field and crop entities for traceable audit trails.
AcreValue stores pesticide use events as structured records linked to farm assets such as fields and crop identifiers, which improves traceability during compliance review. The automation surface supports schema-aligned imports and API-driven integrations so teams can provision records from existing systems rather than rekeying data. The data model is geared toward repeatable capture of product, rate, timing, applicator, and application details so reports can be generated from consistent fields.
A tradeoff is that higher control depth can increase setup work because the schema must match how operations track fields, crops, and applicators. AcreValue fits situations where multiple systems feed pesticide events, such as a farm management workflow plus separate scouting or procurement systems that need to synchronize record throughput.
- +Field and crop linked pesticide event records improve audit traceability
- +API and integrations reduce manual rekeying for pesticide entries
- +Structured schema enables repeatable compliance reporting
- +Admin controls and audit logging support multi-user governance
- –Schema alignment requires upfront configuration for consistent data capture
- –Complex setups can increase time to onboard new farms and users
- –Reporting depends on consistent linkage between fields and events
Agronomy teams
Capture application details during field operations
Faster audit response
Enterprise farm groups
Govern pesticide entry across locations
Lower compliance risk
Show 2 more scenarios
Systems integration teams
Synchronize pesticide events from other apps
Reduced manual entry
API and automation support provisioning pesticide records from internal tools and operational data streams.
Regulatory reporting leads
Generate reports from structured event schema
Consistent documentation
A normalized pesticide data model supports repeatable reporting across products, rates, and timing fields.
Best for: Fits when operations need API-driven pesticide record workflows with governed user access.
More related reading
Cropio
agronomy recordsStores agronomy activity data and input records tied to fields while supporting reporting workflows used for compliance documentation and audits.
Workflow-driven pesticide record approvals tied to application events and attachments.
Cropio fits teams that need a controlled schema for pesticide records, from application events to document attachments tied to activities. The automation surface supports workflow steps like review, approval, and issuance of records with consistent capture fields across seasons and locations. Admin and governance controls include RBAC-style access boundaries and auditability for record changes tied to users.
A tradeoff appears with tight schema enforcement, because custom fields and workflows require configuration and may add setup time before high throughput data capture. Cropio works best when records originate from field crews or agronomy teams and must be reconciled with inventory and activity history before export or audit. Teams that already have a mature farm data stack can use the API and integration options to sync application events and compliance artifacts.
- +Extensible pesticide application data model for structured compliance records
- +Configurable approval workflows reduce manual review and re-entry
- +RBAC and audit log coverage support governed record updates
- +API and integrations support syncing application and inventory events
- –Schema customization can require upfront configuration effort
- –Complex multi-farm rollups may increase admin workload during setup
Agronomy teams
Log field applications with consistent schema
Faster compliant record completion
Compliance and QA managers
Enforce approvals before release
Lower audit finding rate
Show 2 more scenarios
Operations administrators
Control access across farm units
Reduced unauthorized edits
RBAC-style permissions limit who can create, edit, and approve pesticide records per location.
Systems integration teams
Sync records via API
Less manual reconciliation work
API access supports automation that pushes application and inventory data into external reporting systems.
Best for: Fits when mid-size farms need governed pesticide logging with automation and API-based sync.
Taranis
field evidenceCaptures field observations and treatment evidence in an organized data model intended for operational recordkeeping and reporting.
Treatment event schema that ties products, plots, and scouting context into one audit trail.
Taranis maps pesticide-related activities into a treatment event schema that connects who recorded the observation, where it occurred, and which product actions were taken. The integration depth is driven by an API and event-oriented interfaces that can transmit scouting inputs and application outcomes into downstream systems. Automation centers on configuring record workflows and provisioning structured data so teams can capture consistent fields at submission time. RBAC and audit log support traceability when multiple roles edit scouting notes and treatment entries.
A tradeoff is that teams still need disciplined setup of crop and plot structure so the treatment event records stay consistent across users and locations. Taranis works best when record keeping depends on ongoing field inputs from scouting and task execution, not only on one-time compliance uploads. A common usage situation is consolidating field scouting results into application records that can be shared with agronomy staff and inspectors.
- +Event-based data model links scouting inputs to treatment records
- +API and automation support structured integrations for external systems
- +RBAC and audit log support governance across multiple roles
- +Configurable workflows reduce field-level data inconsistency
- –Consistent crop and plot setup is required for clean data
- –Workflow configuration effort increases with multi-region operations
Agronomy operations teams
Log treatments after field scouting results
Cleaner, audit-ready treatment histories
Farm management integrators
Sync records into ERP systems
Lower manual re-entry work
Show 2 more scenarios
Compliance and QA managers
Review edit activity across roles
Stronger governance evidence
Rely on audit log trails and RBAC to verify record changes tied to specific operators.
Multi-site farm groups
Standardize record workflows across sites
More uniform reporting output
Use configurable schemas and workflows so treatment fields remain consistent across plots and regions.
Best for: Fits when teams need auditable field-to-treatment records with API integration.
Agworld
farm operationsManages farm tasks, field operations, and agronomy documentation in a structured workflow that produces exportable records for audits.
Configured pesticide application workflows that enforce consistent record schema and fields across farms.
Agworld provides pesticide record keeping with field, crop, and application context tied into a structured data model for agronomy workflows. It supports document workflows for compliance artifacts like spray records and product usage logs with traceable entries.
Integration depth centers on connecting farm data and operational records into shared schemas used across teams. Automation focuses on configuration-driven workflows that reduce manual re-entry and standardize record formats.
- +Data model links crop, field, and pesticide usage into auditable application records.
- +Workflow configuration standardizes spray record fields and reduces entry variance.
- +Team collaboration supports RBAC-style separation for operational roles.
- +Extensibility through integration connectors and API-oriented automation.
- –API surface details are harder to validate without direct technical documentation review.
- –Schema rigidity can require preprocessing for nonstandard internal data formats.
- –Provisioning and governance controls may not meet strict enterprise segregation needs.
- –Automation throughput can depend on workflow configuration complexity per site.
Best for: Fits when farm teams need structured pesticide logs tied to field and crop context with workflow controls.
FarmERP
ag ERPTracks farm inputs and field operations in a recordkeeping data model aimed at compliance reporting with administrative controls.
Field and crop linked pesticide history that keeps application records consistent across operations.
FarmERP records pesticide applications against field, crop, and activity histories with traceable entries and reporting. The data model centers on farm operations and chemical usage so records stay consistent across seasons and sites.
Automation is handled through configurable workflows for recurring tasks like planned spraying and record completion. FarmERP’s value is most visible when integration and governance needs demand clear schema alignment, controlled access, and auditable changes.
- +Structured pesticide entries tied to fields and crop context
- +Workflow support for planned spraying and completion tracking
- +Reports that summarize pesticide use across time and locations
- +Schema-driven data collection reduces record inconsistency
- –Automation depth depends on available workflow configuration options
- –External integration relies on the platform’s provided API surface
- –Granular RBAC settings may not cover every admin governance pattern
- –Audit log coverage for all pesticide field edits may be limited
Best for: Fits when farm teams need controlled pesticide record keeping with workflow-driven data capture.
FarmLogs
field historyCaptures agronomy activities and field history with reporting outputs that can serve as pesticide usage record inputs.
Application records linked to fields, crops, and dates for compliance reporting and traceable audit trails.
FarmLogs fits teams that need pesticide record keeping tied to field operations and compliance workflows. Its data model centers on fields, crops, and applications so each pesticide event is captured with product and timing details.
FarmLogs supports operational reporting and document generation for audits by organizing records by location and date range. The system also provides integration paths for exporting and connecting with operational workflows through its API and automation surface.
- +Field and application data model maps pesticide events to specific locations
- +Reports group records by field and time window for audit-ready summaries
- +API and export options support integration with existing farm systems
- +Configuration reduces duplicate entry across repeated operations
- –Automation depends on supported integration patterns rather than fully custom workflows
- –Schema flexibility is limited when adding nonstandard compliance attributes
- –Governance and RBAC details can be harder to validate across multi-role teams
- –Bulk import workflows can require careful data normalization
Best for: Fits when growers need pesticide records tied to fields and audit reporting with controlled access.
Agrivi
ag operationsRuns field and input logging workflows in a structured system designed for operational records and exportable reports.
Field- and crop-linked pesticide application records with workflow-based compliance checkpoints.
Agrivi ties pesticide record keeping to farm operations by organizing inputs, tasks, and field actions inside one data model. The schema supports structured pesticide applications and links them to crops and field activities for traceable reporting.
Agrivi automation centers on workflow configuration for recurring tasks and compliance-oriented follow-ups. Integration depth depends on its API and partner connectors that enable export, provisioning, and data movement across connected systems.
- +Field and crop linkage keeps pesticide records context-rich and audit-ready
- +Workflow configuration supports recurring application and compliance tasks
- +Documented API enables integration for record sync and provisioning
- +Structured schema reduces inconsistent entries across users
- –API coverage can be uneven for custom data model extensions
- –Automation rules require careful governance to prevent data drift
- –Role separation depends on admin configuration quality
- –Reporting throughput can lag with high-volume field history
Best for: Fits when growers need schema-linked pesticide logs with configurable automation and API integration.
AgriWebb
farm recordkeepingMaintains farm records for activities and compliance documentation with audit-oriented history storage.
Field-linked pesticide application records with audit trails and governed edits via RBAC.
Pesticide record keeping in agriculture often hinges on data capture, traceability, and team governance, not just form entry. AgriWebb differentiates with an agronomy-first data model that links chemical applications to fields, blocks, and related farm records.
The system supports workflow automation via configurable rules around tasks and record requirements, and it exposes an API surface for integration into farm and compliance systems. Admin controls support role-based access and auditability so changes to records and configurations remain reviewable.
- +Agronomy-first schema links applications to fields, blocks, and farm records
- +Configurable workflow automation reduces missing or late pesticide entries
- +API supports integration of dosing events with external farm systems
- +RBAC controls limit who can create, edit, or approve records
- +Audit trails support review of record changes for compliance checks
- –Integration depth depends on data mapping between AgriWebb schema and external systems
- –High automation setups require careful configuration of task and record rules
- –Reporting depends on the recorded data model and may need additional fields for edge cases
- –Bulk historical imports can be constrained by the same schema expectations
Best for: Fits when farm teams need pesticide traceability with governed workflows and API-driven integration.
John Deere Operations Center
platform integrationCentralizes field documentation tied to operations data and supports integration with other systems used for agronomy records management.
Field-based operation event mapping that links treatment records to geospatial field assets.
John Deere Operations Center logs and tracks field operations tied to farm activities, maps, and field boundaries. For pesticide record keeping, it organizes treatment events against geospatial assets and helps teams reconcile operational records across seasons.
Integration depth is shaped by Deere ecosystem connections and dataset exchange patterns that align with its data model. Automation and extensibility are constrained by the availability of published API endpoints and configurable workflows for administrative governance.
- +Ties pesticide records to fields and geospatial boundaries for consistent traceability
- +Centralizes operational events and supports cross-year record retrieval for audits
- +Deere ecosystem integrations reduce manual re-entry for agronomic data
- +Admin controls support user access management for operational data domains
- –API surface for third-party pesticide workflows is not broadly documented for automation
- –Data model centering on operations and assets can limit custom schema needs
- –Automation options for record validation and approvals are limited without deeper configuration
- –Extensibility depends heavily on Deere integrations rather than open connectors
Best for: Fits when teams already running Deere workflows need controlled record keeping with strong field mapping context.
How to Choose the Right Pesticide Record Keeping Software
This buyer's guide covers AcreValue, Cropio, Taranis, Agworld, FarmERP, FarmLogs, Agrivi, AgriWebb, and John Deere Operations Center for pesticide record keeping workflows.
The guide focuses on integration depth, data model design, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls that determine how audits trace pesticide inputs to fields, crops, and application events.
Pesticide record keeping software that turns spray and input events into audit-traceable field records
Pesticide record keeping software captures pesticide applications and related agronomy context so records connect products, timing, and dosage to fields and crops. These systems solve audit traceability needs by enforcing structured data entry tied to the location and event history, not just free-text notes.
Tools like AcreValue model pesticide event data around field and crop entities and support API-driven ingestion for consistent capture. Cropio centers on workflow-driven approvals tied to application events and attachments to keep pesticide records reviewable across sites.
Integration and governance evaluation criteria for pesticide record workflows
Integration depth matters because pesticide records become valuable when they can sync with scouting, inventory, field boundary, and compliance systems using an explicit API or connector path. AcreValue and Taranis prioritize structured event ingestion via API and automation so pesticide data lands in a governed schema instead of manual rekeying.
Admin and governance controls matter because pesticide record edits and approvals require role separation, audit trails, and consistent configuration. Cropio, AgriWebb, and AcreValue provide RBAC-style controls plus audit logging so governance stays enforceable across multiple users and operations.
Field and crop linked pesticide event data model
A data model that ties each pesticide application to field, crop, and event history supports traceable audit outputs. AcreValue and FarmLogs link applications to fields, crops, and dates so compliance reporting stays grounded in the farm’s asset context.
API-driven pesticide event ingestion and sync
An API or integration surface enables external tools to push pesticide events into the recordkeeping schema and reduces manual re-entry. AcreValue is built around API-driven pesticide event ingestion tied to field and crop entities, and Taranis supports structured integrations through an API and automation focus.
Workflow approvals tied to application events and evidence
Approval workflows reduce missing or late pesticide entries by requiring review at the event level. Cropio implements workflow-driven approvals tied to application events and attachments, and AgriWebb adds configurable workflow automation with governed edits via RBAC.
RBAC and audit log coverage for governed record edits
Governance controls must cover who can create, edit, approve, and view pesticide records, plus an audit trail for changes. AcreValue emphasizes admin controls and audit logging for multi-user oversight, while AgriWebb highlights audit trails and RBAC-style separation to keep edits reviewable.
Configurable schema enforcement for consistent compliance fields
Schema enforcement makes compliance reporting repeatable by standardizing required record fields across users and farms. Agworld’s configured pesticide application workflows enforce consistent spray record schema and reduce entry variance, and Cropio uses an extensible data model that supports structured compliance records for pesticide applications.
Provisioning and governance configuration that scales across farms
Enterprise-style onboarding depends on whether governance and provisioning remain manageable when adding new farms and roles. AcreValue supports admin configuration and governance controls, while multi-region workflow configuration can increase setup effort for Taranis and schema customization effort can increase admin workload for Cropio.
Decision framework for pesticide record keeping tools with audit-grade control
Start with the integration target that must be synchronized into pesticide records, because API surface and data mapping quality determine whether pesticide events become consistent. AcreValue fits when external systems must ingest pesticide events tied to fields and crops, while John Deere Operations Center fits when Deere ecosystem workflows already manage field assets and operational events.
Next validate the data model schema and governance controls against the way records move through the organization. Cropio and AgriWebb match teams that need event-level approvals and RBAC governance, while Agworld and FarmERP match teams that need consistent workflow-driven data capture for compliance reporting.
Define the source of truth for fields, crops, and treatment events
Select AcreValue, FarmERP, or FarmLogs when fields, crops, and dates must be the backbone of every pesticide application record. Choose Taranis when scouting inputs must be tied to plot and treatment events in one auditable history.
Match the integration surface to the integration workload
Pick AcreValue when an API-driven ingestion workflow must feed pesticide event records directly into field and crop entities. Pick Taranis when structured event integrations must synchronize operational context with treatment events, and pick Agrivi when partner connectors and API-based provisioning move input and task data into a linked schema.
Set approval and evidence requirements as workflow gates
Choose Cropio when pesticide record approvals must tie to application events and attachments so reviewers can validate supporting evidence. Choose AgriWebb when governed workflows must limit who can create, edit, or approve pesticide records while keeping audit trails for record changes.
Stress-test schema alignment before scaling to multiple farms
Plan upfront configuration if a tool requires schema alignment for consistent data capture, which applies to AcreValue and can apply to Cropio and Taranis through crop and plot setup. Choose Agworld when configured pesticide application workflows standardize required spray record fields across farms to reduce entry variance.
Validate governance coverage for edits, reviews, and auditability
Confirm audit log coverage for pesticide field edits and workflow actions before onboarding additional roles, because FarmERP notes audit log coverage for all pesticide field edits may be limited. Prefer AcreValue, Cropio, or AgriWebb when RBAC and audit logging are central to multi-user governance.
Plan for bulk imports and historical normalization
If historical loads are required, treat schema expectations as a normalization task, since FarmLogs can require careful data normalization for bulk historical inputs and Agrivi throughput can lag at high-volume field history. Use an approach that validates field linkage consistency, since multiple tools depend on consistent crop, plot, or field setup for clean data.
Which teams benefit from pesticide record keeping tools with audit-grade structure
Pesticide record keeping tools fit teams that need structured pesticide application records tied to fields and crops so audits can trace inputs to location and date. These tools also fit organizations that need workflow governance so approvals and edits are constrained by role and captured in audit logs.
AcreValue targets API-driven pesticide record workflows with governed user access, and Cropio targets governed pesticide logging with approvals and API-based sync for mid-size farms across sites.
Operations teams that need API-driven pesticide event workflows
AcreValue supports API-driven pesticide event ingestion tied to field and crop entities for traceable audit trails, which reduces manual rekeying. Taranis also fits teams that need API integration where treatment events tie back to plot and scouting context for auditable records.
Mid-size farms that require event-level approvals and attachments
Cropio adds configurable approval workflows tied to application events and attachments so pesticide records stay reviewable. AgriWebb supports governed workflows with RBAC controls and audit trails for record changes when multi-role collaboration is required.
Farm task and compliance teams that need standardized spray record schema across farms
Agworld enforces consistent pesticide application workflow fields so records stay uniform across farms. FarmERP and FarmLogs also support schema-driven pesticide entries tied to fields and crops, with workflow capture for planned spraying and completion tracking in FarmERP.
Growers and agronomy teams that need scouting and treatment linked in one audit trail
Taranis models treatment events that tie products, plots, and scouting context into one audit trail for inspection readiness. Agrivi fits teams that need field- and crop-linked pesticide logs with workflow-based compliance checkpoints.
Organizations already operating inside the John Deere field workflow ecosystem
John Deere Operations Center fits teams that already use Deere workflows for field mapping and operational events, since pesticide records are organized against geospatial field assets. This choice reduces manual reconciliation of agronomic records across seasons when Deere ecosystem integrations and dataset exchange patterns align.
Pesticide record keeping implementation mistakes that break audit traceability and governance
Common failures come from misaligning schema configuration with field setup, which then breaks the link between pesticide events and the farm assets required for audit traceability. Taranis and FarmLogs both depend on consistent crop, plot, or field linkage, so inconsistent setup causes reporting gaps.
Governance mistakes also show up when role separation and audit logging do not cover the exact edit paths used by pesticide record workflows. FarmERP can limit audit log coverage for all pesticide field edits, while Agrivi and AgriWebb require careful admin configuration quality for role separation and workflow rules.
Treating pesticide records as free-text instead of field-linked events
Use tools that enforce field and crop linkage in the data model, such as AcreValue, FarmLogs, or AgriWebb, so each application event remains traceable to location and date. Avoid implementations that allow records to exist without consistent field linkage because reporting depends on consistent linkage between fields and events.
Over-customizing the schema before validating onboarding workload
Plan upfront configuration if schema alignment is required for consistent data capture, which applies to AcreValue and can apply to Cropio through schema customization effort. Limit custom extensions until workflows and reporting outputs match actual compliance needs.
Building approvals without event-level gates and evidence requirements
Require approvals tied to application events and attachments using Cropio so reviewers validate evidence at the record level. Avoid relying on general task approvals that do not connect to the pesticide event schema that auditors expect.
Assuming role-based controls cover every edit and review path
Validate audit trail coverage for pesticide field edits and workflow actions because FarmERP notes audit log coverage for all pesticide field edits may be limited. Prefer AcreValue or AgriWebb when governed edits and auditability are central to the workflow design.
Ignoring bulk import normalization and high-volume throughput behavior
Treat bulk historical imports as a data normalization project because FarmLogs bulk import workflows can require careful normalization. Check automation throughput behavior on high-volume field history because Agrivi can lag when workflow rules interact with large historical datasets.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated AcreValue, Cropio, Taranis, Agworld, FarmERP, FarmLogs, Agrivi, AgriWebb, and John Deere Operations Center using the feature set, ease of use, and value signals available in the provided tool summaries. Each tool received an overall rating that weighted features most heavily, then balanced ease of use and value, because pesticide recordkeeping success depends on integration depth, governed data capture, and audit-ready structure. This ranking reflects criteria-based scoring driven by the named capabilities for API integration, data model linkage, workflow automation, RBAC, and audit logging.
AcreValue stood apart because its pesticide record workflow emphasizes API-driven pesticide event ingestion tied to field and crop entities for traceable audit trails, and this directly strengthened both the features score and the governance and audit traceability outcomes that auditors need.
Frequently Asked Questions About Pesticide Record Keeping Software
How do pesticide record systems model field and application traceability for audits?
Which tools offer the strongest API or automation surface for pushing records into other systems?
What integration pattern works best when external systems need structured event data rather than scanned documents?
Which platforms support admin controls and audit logs that track configuration and record changes?
How do SSO and access governance typically work in pesticide record keeping software?
What is the most reliable approach for migrating existing pesticide records into a new system?
Which tools reduce re-entry by automating approvals and required fields during record capture?
How do teams handle document workflows like spray records and compliance attachments alongside structured application data?
When operations span multiple sites, what controls prevent inconsistent pesticide fields and mapping errors?
What are the main limitations when a farm already runs Deere workflows and wants pesticide record keeping to match geospatial assets?
Conclusion
After evaluating 9 agriculture farming, AcreValue stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Agriculture Farming alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of agriculture farming tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare agriculture farming tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.