GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Technology Digital MediaTop 10 Best Screen Capture Video Software of 2026
Top 10 ranking of Screen Capture Video Software with side-by-side criteria for Windows and Mac, covering Screencastify, Loom, and OBS Studio.
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.
Screencastify
Chrome extension recording with webcam and microphone capture plus in-editor trim and annotation.
Built for fits when teams need quick visual walkthroughs with Chrome-based capture and light governance..
Loom
Editor pickTranscription plus searchable text for each recording reduces time spent rewatching and finding answers.
Built for fits when distributed teams need async screen capture, analytics, and identity governance for repeatable reviews..
OBS Studio
Editor pickExtensible scene system with source filters and scripting hooks to automate capture configuration and switching.
Built for fits when teams need workstation-level capture automation and extensibility without centralized admin controls..
Related reading
Comparison Table
The comparison table maps Screen Capture Video Software across integration depth, data model, and automation and API surface for workflows that span browsers, desktop capture, and team sharing. It also contrasts admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning patterns, and audit log coverage, alongside extensibility and configuration options that affect throughput and capture consistency.
Screencastify
browser extensionBrowser-based screen and webcam recording with Google Drive exports, editing, and share links from a Chrome extension.
Chrome extension recording with webcam and microphone capture plus in-editor trim and annotation.
Screencastify produces shareable recordings from Chrome-based screen capture with options for webcam overlays and microphone audio. Captured content can be managed in a library for reuse, and basic in-editor actions like trimming and annotation reduce the need for external editors. The data model is centered on recording assets and metadata, which supports straightforward review and distribution workflows.
A tradeoff appears in automation and governance depth compared with tools built around large-scale content pipelines. Browser extension capture limits certain enterprise scenarios like headless capture, complex endpoint provisioning, and high-throughput multi-user workflows. Screencastify fits situations where teams need consistent visual instructions quickly and can manage governance through admin configuration and access controls.
- +Chrome extension capture with webcam and microphone recording
- +Built-in trimming and annotation reduces external editing steps
- +Recording library supports reuse and faster sharing
- –Limited documented automation and external API surface
- –Governance controls skew toward configuration over full enterprise policy tooling
- –Browser extension capture limits advanced endpoint and throughput patterns
Customer support teams
Create repeatable troubleshooting walkthroughs
Reduced time per case
IT enablement teams
Standardize software training clips
More consistent onboarding
Show 2 more scenarios
Product operations teams
Document internal workflows visually
Fewer repeat questions
Ops teams turn recurring process steps into short videos for cross-team alignment.
Sales enablement teams
Record feature demos in Chrome
More consistent demo messaging
Enablement staff capture product screens and add callouts for feature walkthroughs.
Best for: Fits when teams need quick visual walkthroughs with Chrome-based capture and light governance.
Loom
team recordingCloud recording for screen, webcam, and audio with link-based sharing, team libraries, and admin controls for sign-in and publishing.
Transcription plus searchable text for each recording reduces time spent rewatching and finding answers.
Loom fits teams that need repeatable video capture for reviews, onboarding, and handoffs without a heavy production pipeline. The data model centers on recordings tied to projects and viewers, which enables analytics on views, engagement signals, and delivery outcomes. Integrations with common collaboration and identity systems make it practical to standardize capture links and permissions at scale. Automation is primarily configuration driven, with an API surface that supports programmatic access patterns for users and content.
A key tradeoff is that governance depth depends on the admin configuration available in the target plan, especially for enterprise-wide RBAC boundaries and audit retention. Loom works well for recurring workflows like sales enablement and support deflection where consistent templates and searchable transcripts reduce follow-up questions. It is less suited when strict content lifecycle controls require complex approval workflows and custom event pipelines beyond standard webhooks.
- +Transcripts make video content searchable and reviewable
- +Share links support async feedback with viewer engagement tracking
- +Admin controls cover SSO and identity-linked access
- –Automation and custom workflows are limited versus full video pipelines
- –Governance depth for approvals and lifecycle controls depends on configuration
Product teams
Record feature walkthroughs for async reviews
Faster iteration with fewer meetings
Customer support teams
Share troubleshooting videos to reduce ticket churn
Lower repeat issues
Show 2 more scenarios
Sales enablement teams
Deliver updated messaging with controlled access
Better coaching visibility
Admins manage access through identity controls and track who watched what.
IT and enablement admins
Provision users and manage access at scale
Consistent access governance
Directory-linked setup reduces manual account management and permission drift.
Best for: Fits when distributed teams need async screen capture, analytics, and identity governance for repeatable reviews.
OBS Studio
open sourceOpen-source screen capture and video streaming tool with a flexible plugin system and scripting support for automation of capture sources.
Extensible scene system with source filters and scripting hooks to automate capture configuration and switching.
OBS Studio supports scene graphs that combine multiple capture sources like display capture, window capture, and browser sources with per-source transforms and filters. Recording and streaming outputs are configured through codec and container settings plus adjustable bitrate, keyframe interval, and audio encoder options. Integration depth is driven by extensibility points such as plugins and scriptable controls that can hook into capture pipelines and UI actions.
A tradeoff is that OBS Studio does not provide a built-in admin layer for centralized RBAC, provisioning, or audit logs across multiple users. In shared or managed environments, governance requires external process control and operator discipline. OBS Studio fits situations where automation is needed at the workstation level through scripting and hotkeys rather than through org-wide APIs and centralized policy enforcement.
- +Scene graph supports mixed sources with per-source filters and transforms
- +Hardware accelerated encoding options help sustain capture throughput
- +Hotkeys and scene switching enable repeatable capture setups
- +Plugin and scripting hooks extend automation beyond UI controls
- –No native RBAC or multi-user governance for centralized administration
- –Automation depends on local scripting patterns rather than formal APIs
- –Configuration management across machines can require manual standardization
Training and enablement teams
Record consistent module demos
Fewer retakes per module
QA and support engineers
Capture reproducible bug repro steps
More comparable issue evidence
Show 2 more scenarios
Live ops and stream operators
Route audio and overlays dynamically
Lower context switching time
Audio routing and multi-source scenes support rapid switching between desktop views and overlays.
Developer teams
Automate capture using local scripts
Faster repeatable capture runs
Scripting and extensibility points enable control of recording actions and scene changes.
Best for: Fits when teams need workstation-level capture automation and extensibility without centralized admin controls.
ShareX
Windows captureWindows screen capture app with configurable capture workflows, hotkeys, and extensible upload destinations for recorded media outputs.
ShareX action chains let capture, post-process, and upload run as a configured workflow.
Screen capture and video tooling often splits between simple grabs and governed workflows. ShareX targets a capture-to-output pipeline with configurable actions, hotkeys, and post-capture processing.
It supports screen recording, region capture, OCR-ready text workflows, and automated uploads to multiple destinations via built-in connectors. Configuration-driven capture rules and extensibility via scriptable actions make it suitable for repeatable internal capture processes.
- +Capture pipeline supports configurable actions after each screenshot or recording
- +Hotkeys and region selection enable repeatable capture workflows
- +Extensible actions can route media to multiple destinations
- +Queue-like behavior improves throughput during consecutive captures
- +Workflow settings are stored as a structured configuration file
- –Admin governance features like RBAC and audit logs are not built around roles
- –Automation surface is mostly configuration and scripts, not a formal REST API
- –Enterprise provisioning patterns require manual distribution of config files
- –Destination integrations depend on the local setup and installed components
- –Headless orchestration and sandboxing controls are limited
Best for: Fits when teams need configurable capture workflows with automation-by-configuration and local extensibility.
Snagit
capture suiteCross-device screen capture with video recording, annotation, and enterprise deployment options via TechSmith tooling and licensing.
Capture plus editor in one flow, with callouts and blur applied directly during video creation.
Snagit records screen video and captures stills with synchronized callouts, arrows, blur, and on-screen text. Workflows center on a consistent media library that organizes captures by project folders and export targets for quick reuse.
Integration depth relies on importing and exporting media rather than a structured data model for automated governance. Automation exists mainly through repeatable capture settings and share outputs, with limited visible API surface for schema-driven integrations.
- +Video capture includes synchronized annotations and callouts
- +Media library keeps capture sets organized for reuse
- +Export options support common handoff formats and destinations
- +Capture templates standardize settings across repeat workflows
- –Automation is mainly configuration-based, not schema-driven
- –Visible API surface for data model and provisioning is limited
- –Governance controls like RBAC and audit logging are not emphasized
- –Extensibility for workflow integration is constrained to media I O
Best for: Fits when teams need repeatable screen video capture with consistent annotations and straightforward media handoff.
Camtasia
editor suiteScreen recording and editor workflow with timeline-based post production, reusable templates, and export pipelines for video deliverables.
Timeline-based editing with reusable callouts and caption support for consistent training video production.
Camtasia fits teams that need repeatable screen capture workflows with video authoring and export in a single desktop tool. It supports webcam and mic capture, callouts, captions, transitions, and timeline editing for structured training and documentation output.
Extensibility centers on reusable assets, templates, and export presets, rather than a governed content graph. Automation and API capabilities are limited compared with enterprise capture and distribution systems with RBAC, audit logs, and provisioning schemas.
- +Timeline editor supports precise sequencing of narration, overlays, and callouts
- +Capture modes include screen, webcam, and microphone in one workflow
- +Exports provide preset-driven output control for training and documentation videos
- +Reusable assets like callout styles reduce manual rework across projects
- –Admin governance features for teams are limited versus enterprise platforms
- –Automation surface and API integration are not positioned for managed workflows
- –Data model for video assets lacks a documented schema for downstream systems
- –RBAC and audit logging controls are not emphasized for compliance workflows
Best for: Fits when teams need consistent screen capture and authoring outputs without deep admin governance or API-driven distribution.
Movavi Screen Recorder
desktop recorderDesktop screen recorder with video capture profiles, built-in trimming, and export to common formats for recorded tutorials.
Region-based capture plus microphone audio recording for narrated micro-demos without building a capture setup.
Movavi Screen Recorder targets desktop screen capture with export-ready outputs for training videos, demos, and troubleshooting guides. Capture supports selecting a region or recording the full screen, and it adds microphone audio for narration or walkthroughs.
Export options include common video formats and codec settings, with tools for trimming and lightweight edits after recording. Movavi Screen Recorder focuses on local capture workflows rather than enterprise integration for governance or API automation.
- +Region and full-screen capture support speeds up focused recordings
- +Microphone audio recording enables narrated demos without extra tools
- +Post-record trimming reduces editing time for short revisions
- +Common export formats fit typical sharing and documentation workflows
- –Automation and API surface are not documented for admin-level provisioning
- –RBAC and audit log controls are not positioned for managed environments
- –Workflow extensibility for templating and metadata schema is limited
- –Collaboration features for review and approvals are not core
Best for: Fits when individuals need repeatable desktop recordings for docs or training without enterprise automation requirements.
ActivePresenter
e-learning authoringScreen recording and interactive e-learning authoring with slide-based outputs, publishing controls, and template-driven workflows.
Interactive authoring inside the recording project, using hotspots and quiz-style elements for publishable training output.
ActivePresenter is screen capture video software that focuses on authoring interactive eLearning style content alongside recordings. It provides a repeatable project structure with scene-level editing, timeline controls, and export to common training output formats.
ActivePresenter also supports template-driven production workflows through reusable assets and consistent editor settings. Automation and integration depth come from its extensibility points and project configuration patterns rather than from enterprise-grade RBAC features.
- +Scene and timeline editor enables fine-grained capture post-processing
- +Project templates and reusable assets speed consistent training production
- +Interactive element authoring supports quizzes, hotspots, and callouts
- +Export workflows fit training publishing needs across common formats
- –Automation surface relies more on editor workflows than on external orchestration APIs
- –Limited evidence of admin governance features like RBAC and audit logs
- –Data model customization and schema integration are not geared for enterprise systems
- –Extensibility favors desktop authoring patterns over server-side throughput
Best for: Fits when teams need repeatable interactive capture authoring with minimal infrastructure and limited IT governance requirements.
ScreenPal
web recorderWeb and desktop screen recording workflow for capturing screen and webcam with immediate file downloads and basic editing.
Link-based sharing with capture-ready workflows for screen, webcam, and microphone capture.
ScreenPal records screen actions, webcam, and microphone input, then exports a shareable video. It supports in-browser capture and local editor workflows for trimming and basic post-processing.
Sharing and replay depend on its hosted links and viewer flow rather than on a self-managed data store. ScreenPal’s integration story centers on embed and link distribution, with limited evidence of a deep automation and API-first surface.
- +In-browser capture reduces setup friction across user devices
- +Video editor supports trimming and simple post-processing steps
- +Hosted share links enable quick distribution without extra infrastructure
- +Multiple input modes cover screen, webcam, and microphone capture
- –Automation and API surface appear limited for workflow orchestration
- –No explicit admin-first data model controls for capture assets are evident
- –Governance controls for RBAC, retention, and audit logging are unclear
- –Customization for capture schema and provisioning is not documented
Best for: Fits when teams need consistent screen capture videos with lightweight sharing, and only limited automation requirements.
TinyTake
cloud captureScreen capture and video recording tool with browser capture options, cloud library storage, and team sharing features.
TinyTake link-based publishing with embed support for distributing captures to reviewers.
TinyTake fits teams that need fast screen capture sharing inside everyday collaboration workflows. It captures screen video and images, then publishes outputs for review, commenting, and distribution.
The workflow centers on reusable capture sessions that turn into shareable links with controlled visibility. Integration depth is mostly oriented around sharing, embed, and export workflows rather than a programmable automation data model.
- +Rapid screen capture workflow for video and image outputs
- +Shareable links for review without manual file handling
- +Supports embeds to place captures into docs and pages
- +Centralized capture library for quick reuse and retrieval
- –Limited documented automation and API surface for workflows
- –Data model and schema are not clearly exposed for integration
- –Admin and governance controls are thin for enterprise RBAC needs
- –Audit and provisioning workflows are not granular for compliance
Best for: Fits when teams need quick screen recordings for async feedback, with link-based sharing and minimal automation requirements.
How to Choose the Right Screen Capture Video Software
This buyer's guide helps teams and individuals pick screen capture video tools that match integration depth, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls. It covers Screencastify, Loom, OBS Studio, ShareX, Snagit, Camtasia, Movavi Screen Recorder, ActivePresenter, ScreenPal, and TinyTake.
The guide translates tool-specific capabilities like Loom transcripts and OBS Studio scripting hooks into decision criteria. It also maps governance gaps like missing RBAC and audit log controls in OBS Studio and ShareX into concrete selection steps.
Evaluation criteria tied to integrations, data model, automation, and governance
Screen capture output only becomes operational when the tool supports a usable data model for captures and when it can integrate into existing workflows. That integration can be browser-extension centric like Screencastify or admin and identity centric like Loom.
Automation and API surface matter when capture creation, routing, and lifecycle control must connect to other systems. Admin and governance controls matter when roles, access, and audit trails must be enforced beyond per-user settings.
Integration depth through capture mechanism and export pipeline
Integration depth shows up in how captures move from recording to review output, such as Screencastify feeding sessions through a consistent Chrome extension flow into a sharing and storage pattern. Loom centers on link-based publishing with viewer engagement tracking, which affects how recordings fit into team workflows.
Documented automation and API surface for managed workflows
Tools with explicit automation hooks reduce reliance on manual steps and local scripting habits. OBS Studio supports automation through scripting hooks and a plugin model, while ShareX automation is mostly configuration and scripts rather than a formal REST API.
Searchable content via transcripts and structured output
Loom transcripts turn recorded video into searchable text, which cuts time spent finding answers inside long recordings. This matters for teams that rely on video links and need text-first review.
Extensibility model for repeatable capture setups
OBS Studio offers a scene graph with per-source filters and transforms plus plugin and scripting hooks, which supports repeatable multi-source capture. ShareX offers action chains that run capture, post-process, and upload steps as a configured workflow.
Admin and governance controls for access and compliance workflows
Loom includes admin controls tied to sign-in and publishing plus identity-linked access via SSO and directory-based provisioning. OBS Studio lacks native RBAC and centralized multi-user governance, and ShareX governance features like RBAC and audit logs are not built around roles.
Data model clarity for captures and reusability
Some tools provide more operational structure than others when saves and reuse need to be consistent across teams. Snagit emphasizes a media library and project folders for reuse, while Screencastify relies on a recording library and browser-based session flow rather than a schema-first integration model.
Pick the capture model, then match it to automation, data movement, and governance requirements
Start with how recordings must be created and distributed, then validate whether the tool supports the integration path without fragile manual steps. Screencastify aligns well with Chrome-based capture and quick sharing, while ScreenPal and TinyTake emphasize link-first sharing with immediate downloads or embeds.
Next, test whether automation and admin governance can meet the operational need for roles, access control, and auditability. Loom is the clearest match for identity-linked admin controls, while OBS Studio and ShareX shift governance work toward workstation configuration and local processes.
Define the primary capture path and distribution method
If capture must happen inside a browser workflow, Screencastify uses a Chrome extension that records screen plus webcam and microphone and then supports in-editor trim and annotation. If link-based async review is the core workflow, Loom, ScreenPal, and TinyTake publish recordings as shareable links and support viewer-focused distribution.
Map required automation to the tool’s real automation surface
When repeatable capture logic must be integrated into a pipeline, ShareX action chains can run capture, post-processing, and uploads from configured workflow settings. When capture source configuration needs extensibility at the workstation level, OBS Studio provides scene graph configuration plus plugin and scripting hooks for automation.
Verify whether the tool exposes a data model that integrations can reliably consume
If downstream systems must programmatically reason about captures, favor tools with identity-linked admin flows and structured content outputs like Loom transcripts that produce searchable text. Tools like Snagit and Camtasia organize work through media libraries, reusable assets, and export presets, which supports reuse but does not emphasize schema-driven integration.
Stress-test governance needs against RBAC and audit expectations
For teams that require role-driven access control and admin enforcement, Loom provides admin controls for sign-in and publishing plus identity-linked provisioning via SSO and directory controls. For centralized RBAC and audit log expectations, OBS Studio and ShareX do not provide native multi-user governance and role-focused audit tooling.
Choose authoring depth based on output format requirements
If training output needs callouts, blur, and synchronized visual annotation during creation, Snagit supports capture plus editor in one flow with callouts applied directly during video creation. If training authorship needs timeline sequencing with callouts and captions, Camtasia and ActivePresenter support timeline or scene-level editing and interactive eLearning elements.
Audience fit by capture workflow, integration needs, and governance posture
Different screen capture tools optimize for different operating models, like browser extension capture versus workstation-level automation versus authoring-first training production. The best fit depends on whether distribution is link-based, file-export based, or pipeline-routed.
Governance expectations also change the outcome, because some tools focus on identity and publishing controls while others lack native RBAC and audit log controls.
Distributed teams needing async review with identity-linked access and searchable transcripts
Loom fits because transcripts make each recording searchable and because admin controls cover sign-in and publishing with SSO and directory-based provisioning patterns. Link-based sharing plus viewer engagement tracking supports repeatable review workflows without relying on manual file handling.
Teams standardizing Chrome-based walkthrough capture with light governance
Screencastify fits because the Chrome extension records screen plus webcam and microphone and because trimming and annotation are built into the capture workflow. This matches training and demo teams that need consistent capture setup with minimal orchestration.
Technical users building workstation capture automation with scene configuration and extensibility
OBS Studio fits because it supports a scene graph with per-source filters and transforms plus plugin and scripting hooks for automation. This is the best match when governance is handled outside the capture tool and when throughput requires hardware accelerated encoding options.
IT-adjacent teams needing configurable capture-to-upload workflows via local rules
ShareX fits because action chains can capture, post-process, and upload using configured workflow settings and hotkeys. This works best when automation is configuration-driven rather than API-driven and when enterprise provisioning can rely on manual configuration distribution.
Training and eLearning authors needing interactive elements and structured authoring
ActivePresenter fits because it supports interactive eLearning authoring with hotspots and quiz-style elements inside the project. Camtasia fits because it provides timeline-based post production with reusable callouts and caption support for consistent training deliverables.
Common selection pitfalls tied to governance gaps and automation surface mismatches
Screen capture tools often look similar at the editor level, but governance, automation, and data movement differ sharply. Misalignment usually appears when a tool lacks RBAC, lacks audit logs, or only offers automation through local configuration rather than an integration-first API.
Another frequent issue is picking authoring depth that does not match distribution needs, which can add production time when the requirement is quick link sharing or transcript-first retrieval.
Assuming centralized RBAC exists when choosing OBS Studio or ShareX
OBS Studio lacks native RBAC or multi-user governance for centralized administration, and ShareX governance features like RBAC and audit logs are not built around roles. Loom is the stronger choice when identity-linked sign-in and publishing controls matter.
Buying for API automation while the tool only supports configuration scripts or editor workflows
ShareX automation is mostly configuration and scripts rather than a formal REST API, and Camtasia and Snagit focus on repeatable settings and media I O rather than a schema-first integration model. OBS Studio scripting hooks can support automation at the workstation level, while Loom provides a more admin and identity-oriented workflow integration path.
Ignoring transcript and text search requirements for async video review
Loom adds transcripts that make each recording searchable, which reduces time spent rewatching and finding answers. Tools like Screencastify and TinyTake emphasize capture and link sharing, which helps distribution but does not add text-first search as a core capability.
Overbuilding authoring features for teams that mainly need fast capture and embedding
ActivePresenter and Camtasia add interactive and timeline authoring capabilities that fit training production but can be heavier than link-first workflows. ScreenPal and TinyTake emphasize embed and link distribution with basic trimming, which better matches lightweight review needs.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Screencastify, Loom, OBS Studio, ShareX, Snagit, Camtasia, Movavi Screen Recorder, ActivePresenter, ScreenPal, and TinyTake on feature coverage, ease of use, and value, then computed an overall rating where features carry the most weight while ease of use and value each balance the outcome. The scoring emphasized whether tools actually support integration mechanisms like Chrome extension capture, link-based publishing with identity admin controls, or workstation-level automation via plugins and scripting hooks.
Screencastify separated from lower-ranked tools because the Chrome extension recording includes webcam and microphone capture plus in-editor trim and annotation, which improved both features and day-to-day usability in its fastest capture-to-share workflow.
Frequently Asked Questions About Screen Capture Video Software
Which tools support SSO and directory provisioning for identity governance?
What is the main difference between an extensible plugin workflow and a configuration-driven capture pipeline?
Which screen capture tools integrate best with browser-based distribution and link sharing?
How do automation capabilities differ between OBS Studio, ShareX, and Chrome-extension tools?
Which tools are better for interactive eLearning authoring instead of plain screen recording?
What technical approach is best for high-throughput screen capture encoding control?
Which toolchains best support standardized annotations and repeatable callout styling inside the capture editor?
What data migration or content portability steps commonly matter when moving between teams and tools?
How do admin controls and audit visibility typically differ across tools?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 technology digital media, Screencastify 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
Technology Digital Media alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of technology digital media tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare technology digital media 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.