GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Art DesignTop 10 Best Raster Software of 2026
Rank the top Raster Software with technical criteria and tradeoffs for editors. Includes Adobe Photoshop, GIMP, and Krita.
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.
Adobe Photoshop
Scripting with layer and mask manipulation enables repeatable PSD edits across batches.
Built for fits when visual teams need controllable raster automation inside a design pipeline..
GIMP
Editor pickNon-destructive masks and layer operations combined with scripting for repeatable batch exports.
Built for fits when teams need local raster automation without centralized user governance..
Krita
Editor pickKrita’s advanced brush engine with per-brush dynamics and stroke stabilizers.
Built for fits when artists need configurable raster workflows and local automation..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table benchmarks raster editors across integration depth, focusing on how each tool fits into existing pipelines and what data model it uses for layer, mask, and adjustment history. It also compares automation and API surface for provisioning, extensibility, and repeatable workflows, plus admin and governance controls like RBAC and audit log coverage. Readers can use the table to map tradeoffs in configuration options, sandboxing, and throughput when deploying these tools at scale.
Adobe Photoshop
raster editorProvides raster editing features with scripting, plugin extensibility, and automation via Adobe ExtendScript and the Adobe UXP plugin ecosystem.
Scripting with layer and mask manipulation enables repeatable PSD edits across batches.
Adobe Photoshop’s core capability is editing and transforming raster pixels inside a layer-based PSD schema. It includes tools for retouching, typography for raster output, and nondestructive adjustments using layers and masks. The automation surface relies on scripting and batch workflows that operate on local files and projects. Extensibility exists through scripting and installed extensions, but there is no first-party REST API for provisioning and programmatic ingestion that maps cleanly to an external data catalog.
A key tradeoff is that governance and integration depth skew toward human-in-the-loop production workflows instead of automated, API-driven throughput. Teams often use Photoshop to prepare assets, refine comps, and generate export bundles, then pass those artifacts to downstream systems. Automation works best for repeatable edits that can be expressed as scripted layer operations and batch runs. For high-volume pipeline integration with RBAC, audit log requirements, and sandboxed execution, Photoshop scripting usually complements rather than replaces a dedicated asset pipeline.
- +Layered PSD data model preserves edit intent for iterative raster production
- +Extensive retouching, compositing, and color management controls
- +Scripting and batch workflows automate repeatable layer operations
- +Exports support common raster formats for downstream publishing
- –Limited integration depth via external API compared with pipeline-native tools
- –Governance features like RBAC and audit logs are not its primary focus
- –Automation throughput depends on local projects and file-based execution
Marketing production teams
Bulk banner edits from layered templates
Faster asset turnaround
Brand asset librarians
Controlled export generation for brand specs
Fewer manual export errors
Show 2 more scenarios
Creative ops automation engineers
Workflow runs with file-based job orchestration
Reduced repetitive editing work
Batch scripts perform deterministic edits before transferring outputs to other systems.
Studio retouching specialists
Nondestructive cleanup with masks and adjustments
Higher edit reproducibility
Retouch tools combine with adjustment layers for reversible pixel refinements.
Best for: Fits when visual teams need controllable raster automation inside a design pipeline.
GIMP
open source rasterDelivers raster image editing with a plugin architecture and automation through Script-Fu and Python-based scripting for repeatable image operations.
Non-destructive masks and layer operations combined with scripting for repeatable batch exports.
GIMP fits teams that need local control over image assets and predictable file outputs across operating systems. The data model centers on layered images, selections, channels, and masks, which maps cleanly to reproducible editing pipelines. Integration depth is mostly via the plugin architecture and the scripting hooks that drive repeatable batch processing.
A tradeoff is the limited admin and governance surface compared with server-managed raster tools, since user roles and audit logging are not inherent to the core editor. GIMP works best for creative production where automation can run in a sandboxed environment on a shared workstation or CI runner using scripted exports.
- +Layered data model with channels and masks for repeatable edits
- +Scriptable workflows enable batch export and deterministic processing steps
- +Plugin architecture supports extensibility and custom tools
- –No native RBAC or audit log for centralized governance
- –Automation API surface is mostly editor scripting, not enterprise HTTP endpoints
Graphic production teams
Batch render branded variants from PSD-like sources
Lower manual retouching time
Design systems teams
Generate icons and assets from templates
Consistent output schema
Show 2 more scenarios
Creative operations engineers
Run CI jobs for raster conversions
Higher throughput for builds
Scripting automates selection, filters, and export steps inside a controlled execution environment.
Small teams without admins
Maintain offline editing workflows
Fewer infrastructure constraints
File-based documents avoid server dependencies while preserving layered edit history.
Best for: Fits when teams need local raster automation without centralized user governance.
Krita
digital paintingSupports raster painting and illustration workflows with extensibility through plugins and scripting to automate brush tools and batch operations.
Krita’s advanced brush engine with per-brush dynamics and stroke stabilizers.
Krita offers a detailed raster data model that maps cleanly to editable layers, masks, and selection data for iterative artwork. The brush system supports per-brush settings and stabilizers that affect stroke behavior at creation time. Automation and extensibility are driven by scripting and plugins that can operate on the open document state. Integration depth is strongest inside the authoring loop since the automation surface is centered on file and document operations rather than remote APIs.
A concrete tradeoff is limited admin and governance coverage, since Krita lacks RBAC and centralized audit log primitives for teams. A common usage situation is a design studio where artists need consistent brush behavior and repeatable preprocessing actions for batch artwork cleanup on shared assets. In that setting, macros and scripts can standardize layer setup and export steps without requiring an external pipeline.
- +Configurable brush engine with stroke stabilizers and per-brush settings
- +Layer masks and non-destructive adjustments for reversible editing
- +Scripting and plugins enable repeatable actions on document objects
- +Macroscopic document model preserves selections, layers, and effects
- –No RBAC or audit log for centralized admin governance
- –Limited API surface for remote automation and orchestration
- –Collaboration features are not designed for multi-user handoff control
Illustrators and concept artists
Iterative painting with layer masks and effects
Faster revisions with reversible edits
Studio production artists
Batch cleanup and standardized export prep
Consistent outputs across projects
Show 1 more scenario
R&D creative technologists
Custom tools via plugins and scripting
Specialized automation for experiments
Extends paint workflow by automating document operations through scripting hooks.
Best for: Fits when artists need configurable raster workflows and local automation.
Photopea
web raster editorRuns in a web browser for raster editing and includes automation via repeatable toolchains that can be used for batch-style workflows through scripted client actions.
PSD-capable layer editing that preserves working structure across import and export.
Photopea is a raster editor focused on browser-native image processing and layered workflows. It supports PSD and common raster formats, along with non-destructive edits like layers, masks, and blend modes.
Integration depth is limited because Photopea primarily runs as a web UI with file-based import and export rather than a programmable data model. Automation and API surface are minimal compared with editors designed for provisioning, RBAC, and audit log driven administration.
- +Layer-based raster editing with masks, blend modes, and adjustment layers
- +PSD import and export with practical fidelity for common production files
- +Browser-based workflow reduces desktop dependency for quick edits
- +Handles common raster formats for predictable interchange between tools
- –Little evidence of a documented automation API for programmatic operations
- –No clear schema or provisioning model for managed teams
- –Limited admin controls such as RBAC and audit log for governance
- –Automation throughput is constrained by interactive file upload workflows
Best for: Fits when teams need ad hoc raster edits in a browser without managed automation requirements.
Affinity Photo
desktop rasterOffers raster photo editing with non-destructive workflows and automation support through macro-like repeat actions and scripting-ready workflows.
Affinity Photo’s nondestructive layer and masking workflow for pixel-accurate composites.
Affinity Photo edits and composites raster images with nondestructive layers, masks, and adjustment workflows. Its pixel-level toolset includes RAW processing, frequency-domain options like sharpening and deblurring tools, and advanced selection refinement.
Integration depth is limited outside Serif’s own ecosystem, because Affinity Photo centers on a desktop raster workspace rather than a published API surface. Automation and governance controls are not positioned around external provisioning, RBAC, or audit log workflows.
- +Nondestructive layers with masks support reversible raster edits
- +RAW workflow includes exposure and tone adjustments tied to layers
- +Precision selection tools handle feathered edges and refinement
- +Extensive brushes and retouching tools for pixel-level finishing
- –No documented external API for integration or scripted batch automation
- –Limited admin governance features like RBAC and audit logs
- –Automation depends on manual workflow rather than orchestration controls
- –Extensibility is primarily plugin-focused with limited external schema alignment
Best for: Fits when design teams need controlled raster editing without enterprise automation requirements.
CorelDRAW
design suiteSupports raster editing and effects inside a design suite with automation through custom actions, macros, and application scripting.
Batch export using templates and document settings for consistent raster output.
CorelDRAW fits teams that need raster-centric production workflows with vector-first authoring and tight export control. It supports batch operations, style consistency via templates, and layered document handling that carries metadata through common raster export paths.
CorelDRAW’s automation surface is mainly scriptable and workflow driven through document actions and repeatable settings rather than web-scale APIs. Integration depth centers on interchange with other design and publishing tools through file formats and export pipelines.
- +Layered documents keep asset organization through export to raster formats
- +Templates and styles reduce variance across high-volume render outputs
- +Batch processing supports repeated raster exports with consistent settings
- +Scripting enables repeatable actions for production runs
- –API surface is limited compared to headless or service-driven raster pipelines
- –No documented RBAC or admin audit log controls for centralized governance
- –Automation favors desktop workflows over sandboxed, multi-tenant execution
- –Raster pipeline extensibility relies more on file interchange than integrations
Best for: Fits when print and marketing teams need repeatable desktop exports without governance-heavy automation.
Paint.NET
lightweight rasterProvides raster image editing with a plugin system and extensibility for automation-style workflows using add-ons and scripting-compatible capabilities.
Plugin system for adding new filters, effects, and tools
Paint.NET is a raster editor designed for repeatable image editing workflows using layers, non-destructive-style operations, and a plugin system. Its integration depth is limited to local workflows since it lacks a built-in automation API and remote provisioning surface.
Extensibility centers on documented plugin points for filters and tools, which supports customization without changing the core application. Core capabilities include layer-based editing, adjustments, selection tools, and export-ready output for common raster formats.
- +Layer-based editing with selections supports iterative raster workflows
- +Plugin architecture adds filters and tools without modifying the core app
- +Script-free batch workflows cover common repeat edits via repeatable actions
- +Fast desktop interaction supports high-throughput manual edits
- –No published automation API limits integration with external systems
- –No RBAC or admin governance model for team-wide use
- –Audit logs and change history are limited for controlled environments
- –Remote provisioning and sandbox controls are not part of the product
Best for: Fits when visual work needs extensibility and local throughput, not enterprise automation and governance.
Aseprite
sprite rasterDelivers raster sprite editing with automation via Lua scripting for batch tasks, custom import-export, and repeatable transformations.
Frame and layer timeline model with script-driven batch export for sprite sheets and animations.
Aseprite is a raster graphics tool focused on frame-based sprite creation and pixel-precise editing. It supports a file data model built around sprites, layers, frames, and palettes, which stays consistent across editing and export.
Automation is driven through its scripting hooks and command-line workflow, with extensibility through plugins and scripts rather than admin-managed jobs. Integration depth is highest with local asset pipelines and export steps like sprite sheets and animated GIFs.
- +Pixel-accurate sprite workflow with layers, frames, and palette controls
- +Scripting and command-line automation for repeatable import and export steps
- +Plugin extensibility for custom tools inside the raster editor
- +Export outputs preserve frame order and layer structure for asset pipelines
- –No native RBAC, admin console, or audit log for multi-user governance
- –Automation relies on local scripting and CLI, not a managed API surface
- –No server-side sandboxing model for untrusted scripts
- –Limited integration options beyond asset export and editor scripting
Best for: Fits when teams need local sprite production with repeatable scripting and export steps.
Blender
render automationSupports rasterization workflows for images and textures with automation through Python scripts that control scenes, render settings, and batch output.
Python scripting and headless execution drive automated rendering, compositing, and baking.
Blender performs end-to-end raster visualization by running rendering, compositing, and texture baking inside one toolchain. Integration depth centers on Python scripting for automation, scene assembly, and export pipelines that can feed downstream raster workflows.
The data model is a scene graph of objects, materials, node graphs, and render settings that persists across sessions and can be read or generated through the Python API. Blender adds an extensibility surface via add-ons and headless execution, which supports throughput in batch rendering jobs.
- +Python API enables automation of scene generation and export pipelines
- +Scene graph and node-based materials map cleanly to programmatic edits
- +Headless rendering supports batch throughput for raster outputs
- +Add-ons extend UI and workflow steps with reusable operators
- –No built-in RBAC or audit log for admin governance
- –API coverage is broad but not a stable, versioned external contract
- –Data interchange for complex materials can require custom import logic
- –Long-running renders make sandboxing and tenancy separation harder
Best for: Fits when teams need script-driven raster rendering automation without enterprise governance controls.
Imagemagick
batch raster processingImplements raster image processing via a command-line toolset with extensive format support and automation through shell scripting and programmatic invocation.
policy.xml supports command and resource limits for safer image processing sandboxing.
Imagemagick is a raster processing toolkit built around a command-line driven workflow and scriptable operations. It supports a broad raster data model via image formats, pixel reads and writes, and transformation operators like resize, crop, and composite.
Automation is centered on its CLI entrypoints plus optional language bindings that feed parameters into the same underlying operation graph. Integration is strongest when pipeline control, deterministic command composition, and filesystem-based image IO fit the target deployment.
- +Large set of raster operations for format conversion and pixel transforms
- +Command-line automation supports repeatable pipelines in scripts and batch jobs
- +Extensible delegates enable handling additional formats through external components
- +Scripting-friendly parameters support throughput with low integration overhead
- –Complex command syntax makes safe parameterization harder for shared automation
- –Limited native RBAC and admin governance for multi-user environments
- –Audit logging is not a built-in governance control in typical deployments
- –In-process extensibility can widen the blast radius of unsafe formats
Best for: Fits when teams need CLI-driven raster conversion and transformations with filesystem-based automation control.
How to Choose the Right Raster Software
This buyer’s guide covers raster software choices across Adobe Photoshop, GIMP, Krita, Photopea, Affinity Photo, CorelDRAW, Paint.NET, Aseprite, Blender, and Imagemagick. It focuses on integration depth, data model fit, automation and API surface, and admin governance controls.
Selection guidance links concrete mechanisms like PSD layer scripting, Python scene automation, and CLI policy-based sandboxing to real deployment needs. It also calls out recurring gaps like limited RBAC, limited audit logging, and automation throughput tied to desktop or file workflows.
Evaluation criteria that map integration, data model control, automation, and governance
The practical differentiator is not brush quality. It is how each tool’s data model supports repeatable transformations and how far automation can run outside a single desktop workflow.
Integration depth also depends on whether the tool offers a documented external automation surface versus file-based interchange. Admin governance matters when multiple users need controlled access and traceable changes.
Data model that preserves production intent
Adobe Photoshop keeps edit intent through a PSD layered data model that preserves layers, masks, and color management controls across iterative export. GIMP and Krita also center layered document models with non-destructive-friendly masks and layer effects so scripting and batch operations can target stable objects.
Scripting depth tied to document objects
Adobe Photoshop supports scripting that manipulates layers and masks so batches can repeat PSD edits deterministically. Aseprite supports a frame and layer timeline model where scripts can drive batch export of sprite sheets and animations with preserved frame order.
Remote automation and API surface for orchestration
Blender provides a broad Python API that drives scene assembly, render settings, compositing, and batch export through headless execution. Imagemagick provides automation through command-line entrypoints and optional language bindings so orchestration can compose deterministic operations from parameters.
Governance controls for shared production environments
None of the authoring-focused editors like GIMP, Krita, Photopea, Affinity Photo, Paint.NET, or CorelDRAW are positioned around RBAC and audit logs for centralized admin control. If RBAC and audit trails are required, Blender and Imagemagick still lack native RBAC in the provided tool set, so governance often has to be built around external system controls and wrapper workflows.
Automation throughput mechanics and execution mode
Blender’s headless rendering supports batch throughput for raster visualization tasks when orchestration needs many jobs without interactive UI time. Imagemagick favors filesystem-based IO and command composition for high-throughput conversions, while desktop editors like Affinity Photo and CorelDRAW typically rely on local workflow steps.
Sandboxing and safety limits for untrusted inputs
Imagemagick includes policy.xml for command and resource limits that enable safer sandboxing of image processing. Editors like Krita and GIMP rely on local plugin and scripting execution, which can widen risk when untrusted scripts are introduced without an external sandbox boundary.
A decision framework for integration depth, automation surface, and admin control
Start with the deployment shape. Choose file-based raster editing tools like Adobe Photoshop or GIMP when production work stays inside the editor and automation remains layer or mask oriented.
Choose pipeline-native automation when raster work must run as services or batch jobs. Blender and Imagemagick fit orchestration because they expose Python automation and CLI-driven operation graphs that can be run headlessly or scripted in bulk.
Match the data model to the edits that must stay stable
If the workflow depends on layer and mask consistency across batches, prioritize Adobe Photoshop because scripting targets layer and mask objects inside PSD. For sprite assets, prioritize Aseprite because the frame and layer timeline model keeps sprite sheets and animated exports aligned with scripted transformations.
Map automation needs to scripting type and execution mode
For repeatable production edits inside authoring workflows, use Adobe Photoshop or GIMP because scripting and batch workflows can operate on layered document structures. For automated rendering and baking, use Blender because the Python API can drive scene graph and node graphs and run headless batch rendering.
Validate whether an external orchestration surface exists for non-interactive jobs
Imagemagick is suitable for orchestration because scripted command composition controls transformations like resize, crop, and composite while parameters feed the same operation graph. Photopea fits when work can remain in a browser UI with file upload and export rather than needing a documented programmable automation API.
Plan governance around the presence or absence of RBAC and audit logs
For centralized admin governance with RBAC and audit log expectations, plan around the fact that editors like Krita, GIMP, Affinity Photo, Paint.NET, and CorelDRAW are not positioned with native RBAC and audit logs. For managed governance patterns, route automation through wrappers around Blender or Imagemagick and enforce access control outside the raster tool.
Account for safety limits when processing untrusted images or untrusted scripts
If untrusted images are part of the pipeline, use Imagemagick policy.xml to apply command and resource limits for safer processing. If plugin or script execution is expected, treat local editors like Krita and GIMP as high-trust components unless an external sandbox is part of the deployment.
Audience fit by workflow shape, automation expectations, and governance needs
Different raster tools optimize for different production constraints. The best choice depends on whether raster work stays inside a design editor or runs as scripted batch jobs.
Governance requirements also change the decision. Tools built for local editing rarely include RBAC or audit logs, so multi-user control often needs surrounding infrastructure.
Design and visual teams needing batchable PSD edits with layer and mask scripting
Adobe Photoshop fits because the PSD layered data model preserves edit intent and scripting can manipulate layers and masks across batches. GIMP can also serve teams that need local repeatability with scripting and non-destructive masks, but it is not built around centralized RBAC or audit logs.
Artists and illustrators needing configurable brush workflows with local automation
Krita fits because its brush engine includes per-brush dynamics and stroke stabilizers while scripting supports repeatable actions on document objects. Krita lacks native RBAC and audit logs, so governance-heavy multi-user control needs external controls.
Automation-first teams running headless raster rendering and baking in pipelines
Blender fits because its Python API can assemble scenes, set render settings, and run headless batch execution that outputs raster results. It still lacks native RBAC and audit logging, so pipeline governance should be enforced around the batch runners.
Engineering teams orchestrating deterministic raster transformations and conversions
Imagemagick fits because it runs as a command-line toolkit with repeatable operations and optional bindings that drive the same underlying transformation model. policy.xml provides command and resource limits that support safer sandboxing for untrusted inputs.
Sprite production teams needing frame-accurate batch export driven by scripts
Aseprite fits because the frame and layer timeline model stays consistent across scripted transformations and exports like sprite sheets and animated GIFs. It supports Lua-driven batch tasks and command-line automation but does not provide native RBAC or audit logging for multi-user governance.
Common buying and deployment pitfalls across raster editing and raster processing tools
Mistakes usually come from mismatching automation expectations with each tool’s execution mode. Desktop editors often excel at deterministic layer-based edits, but they do not provide a pipeline-native orchestration contract.
Governance gaps also cause failures in multi-user setups because many editors lack RBAC and audit log controls inside the tool.
Choosing an editor for API-based orchestration when automation is mostly local scripting
GIMP, Krita, Affinity Photo, Paint.NET, and CorelDRAW focus automation on editor scripting and batch workflows rather than documented enterprise HTTP endpoints, so orchestration often needs filesystem and wrapper scripts. For true orchestration-friendly execution, use Blender with a Python API or Imagemagick with CLI-driven operations.
Ignoring the governance gap when multiple users must be controlled and audited
GIMP, Krita, Photopea, Affinity Photo, Paint.NET, and CorelDRAW are not positioned with native RBAC or audit logs for centralized admin control. If governance requires RBAC and traceability, enforce access control and logging outside the raster tool and route automation through controlled job runners around Blender or Imagemagick.
Assuming browser editing equals programmable automation
Photopea is optimized for browser-native layered editing with file import and export workflows, and it provides minimal automation and API surface for programmatic operations. For automated batch processing, use Imagemagick or Blender instead of relying on browser UI flows.
Processing untrusted images without sandboxing or limits
Imagemagick supports policy.xml to apply command and resource limits for safer sandboxing, so it is the safer fit for untrusted inputs in the provided tool set. Desktop tools that run local scripting and plugins like Krita and GIMP need external trust boundaries if untrusted scripts are introduced.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Adobe Photoshop, GIMP, Krita, Photopea, Affinity Photo, CorelDRAW, Paint.NET, Aseprite, Blender, and Imagemagick on raster feature coverage, ease of use, and value, using the provided ratings and concrete capability notes for each tool. The overall rating is a weighted average in which features carry the most weight, while ease of use and value each matter strongly enough to move midpack tools. We treated integration depth, automation surface, and governance posture as part of the features score because those constraints determine real production viability.
Adobe Photoshop separated from lower-ranked tools because its scripting can manipulate layer and mask structures inside PSD, which directly supports repeatable raster production batches and lifts both feature fit and operational usability.
Frequently Asked Questions About Raster Software
Which raster tools support automation through scripting, not just manual batch export?
What tool choice best fits a PSD-centric workflow that preserves layered structure end to end?
Which raster editor has the strongest plugin and extensibility surface for local workflows?
Which option is best when the goal is browser-native raster editing with limited integration needs?
How do raster tools compare for frequency-domain and advanced pixel processing?
Which workflow suits sprite and pixel-art production with frame-aware data modeling?
Which raster tool is better for controlled batch exports using templates and document actions?
What tool is most suitable for pipeline throughput when operations must be deterministic and command-composed?
Which raster stack provides a stronger security posture for sandboxing risky image operations?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 art design, Adobe Photoshop 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
Art Design alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of art design tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare art design 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.