GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Technology Digital MediaTop 10 Best Screencasts Software of 2026
Top 10 Screencasts Software ranking with technical criteria for teams, plus notes on Scribe, Loom, and Vidyard for SaaS demos.
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.
Scribe
Step capture from live sessions with an editable instructions data model for post-recording refinement.
Built for fits when teams need visual workflow documentation with controlled access and automation-ready exports..
Loom
Editor pickTimestamped comments with moment-specific context speed review and reduce back-and-forth.
Built for fits when teams need async screen feedback with integration and governance controls..
Vidyard
Editor pickSalesforce integration with viewer activity tied back to lead and contact records for workflow triggers.
Built for fits when sales and marketing teams need governed video analytics integrated into CRM-led automation..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table maps Screencasts Software tools by integration depth, focusing on how each product connects to identity, content, and analytics systems through its API and automation surface. It also compares each tool’s data model and schema choices, plus admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning workflows, and audit log coverage. Readers can use the table to evaluate extensibility tradeoffs, configuration options, and operational throughput impacts for real review and sharing workflows.
Scribe
screenshot automationGenerates step-by-step screen instructions from recording sessions and provides structured output that can be edited and shared with versioned pages.
Step capture from live sessions with an editable instructions data model for post-recording refinement.
Scribe captures UI steps as a documentation data model, mapping clicks, fields, and navigation into ordered instructions that can be edited after capture. It supports configuration for how guides render and how recordings translate into documentation, which helps keep formatting consistent across teams. Integration depth matters here because Scribe is designed to connect into existing documentation or internal tooling through API and export workflows rather than relying only on manual copy-paste.
A tradeoff appears when recordings depend on stable UI state and selectors, since frequent UI changes can increase maintenance for guides tied to specific screens. Scribe fits best when teams need repeatable walkthroughs for recurring workflows like onboarding, ticket-driven troubleshooting, and software release handoffs where edits to captured steps reduce doc drift.
- +Turns UI actions into ordered, editable instructions
- +API and automation surface support documentation workflows
- +Exportable outputs fit existing knowledge repositories
- +RBAC-style access control supports multi-team separation
- –Guide quality can drop when UI labels or layouts change
- –Step mapping can require manual cleanup for edge cases
Customer success teams
Document troubleshooting walkthroughs from real sessions
Faster resolution with consistent steps
IT operations teams
Create SOPs for recurring admin tasks
Lower onboarding time
Show 2 more scenarios
Product operations teams
Write release enablement guides for tools
Quicker enablement alignment
Translate release-day workflows into documentation that updates after captured edits.
Engineering enablement teams
Maintain onboarding docs from UI flows
Reduced documentation drift
Use captured steps as a structured doc schema and feed outputs into internal systems.
Best for: Fits when teams need visual workflow documentation with controlled access and automation-ready exports.
More related reading
Loom
team screen captureCaptures screen, webcam, and microphone recordings with team sharing and admin-oriented controls for who can upload, view, and manage content.
Timestamped comments with moment-specific context speed review and reduce back-and-forth.
Loom fits teams that send frequent async updates and need faster review cycles than meetings. Timestamped comments let reviewers attach feedback to precise moments, and viewers can jump directly to the referenced section. Video assets can be created from desktop capture sessions and managed with organization-level settings for sharing behavior.
A tradeoff appears in enterprise-grade customization, since Loom offers an automation and API surface focused on video management and sharing rather than deep workflow orchestration. Loom works well when teams need consistent recording standards and feedback loops for product demos, support triage, and cross-team status updates.
- +Timestamped comments tie feedback to exact video moments
- +Capture supports screen plus camera and voice in one session
- +Integrations place video review in existing collaboration workflows
- +Admin settings control sharing visibility at the account level
- –Automation and API surface focuses more on video handling
- –Complex workflow logic often requires external tooling
Product and UX teams
Reviewing design walkthrough recordings
Faster approvals with less rework
Customer support leads
Triage and escalation explainers
Consistent resolutions across tiers
Show 2 more scenarios
Engineering managers
Async status and demos
Reduced meeting load
Send camera and screen updates to stakeholders and collect structured feedback by moment.
IT and ops administrators
Governed sharing and access control
Clear governance over content
Apply organization sharing rules and manage users to control who can view recordings.
Best for: Fits when teams need async screen feedback with integration and governance controls.
Vidyard
video platformRuns screen video capture and hosting with analytics, audience and access controls, and integrations that support content workflows.
Salesforce integration with viewer activity tied back to lead and contact records for workflow triggers.
Vidyard manages end-to-end video workflows with scripted recording or embed-first delivery, then connects viewer activity to CRM objects like leads and contacts. Playback analytics include engagement signals such as watched time and key moments when teams need attribution-ready context. Integration depth is strongest when the CRM is the system of record and when marketing automation relies on consistent viewer events.
A common tradeoff is that advanced automation requires building against the video data model and event schemas, which adds setup time versus lighter tools. Vidyard fits teams that need recurring workflows, like alerting sales reps when a prospect watches specific content and routing that context through existing CRM processes.
- +CRM-connected viewing analytics that map to lead and contact records
- +API supports programmatic video metadata updates and event-driven workflows
- +Admin governance features for controlled publishing and viewer data access
- –Automation setup depends on consistent schemas and mapping to CRM objects
- –Complex video configuration can require careful asset and permission management
Revenue operations teams
Route watched videos into CRM workflows
Consistent attribution and faster follow-up
Sales enablement teams
Track engagement by training asset
Measurable training effectiveness
Show 2 more scenarios
Marketing operations teams
Trigger campaigns from viewer behavior
Behavior-driven nurture sequencing
Use playback events to fire nurture steps when prospects reach defined engagement thresholds.
Enterprise administrators
Enforce RBAC across video publishing
Reduced access and governance risk
Apply role-based permissions and audit-friendly controls for who can manage assets and sharing.
Best for: Fits when sales and marketing teams need governed video analytics integrated into CRM-led automation.
Soapbox
team video captureRecords screen and webcam video for teams with transcript generation and sharing controls aimed at internal knowledge communication.
Programmatic provisioning and access control for screencast content and views via API.
Soapbox targets screencast creation and sharing with an automation-friendly delivery workflow. It uses a structured content model for videos and views, supporting configuration that can fit different release and review patterns.
Integration depth centers on embedding and downstream consumption patterns that fit documentation and internal knowledge workflows. Extensibility relies on published programmatic hooks and configuration options that support governed publishing, review, and access control.
- +Video delivery supports embedding patterns for consistent internal reuse
- +Structured content and view objects make automation and indexing clearer
- +Configuration options support governed publishing workflows across teams
- +Automation surface includes API access for repeatable provisioning
- –Automation coverage can lag for advanced custom metadata schemas
- –RBAC granularity may be limited for complex multi-org governance
- –Audit log detail can be insufficient for deep investigations
- –API throughput constraints may surface during large batch uploads
Best for: Fits when teams need governed screencast publishing with an API and repeatable provisioning flows.
CloudApp
annotation captureCreates screen recordings and annotated screenshots with link-based sharing and an API surface for managing assets and workspace workflows.
Link-based collaboration for recordings and images that can be added into external tickets through integrations.
CloudApp captures and shares screen recordings and stills with link-based collaboration. It supports integrations with common ticketing and workflow tools to attach media to existing threads and records.
CloudApp’s automation and extensibility rely on configuration of projects, sharing rules, and integration hooks rather than deep schema customization. Admin controls focus on organization-level settings, user permissions, and media access governance for shared links.
- +Screen recording capture with shareable links tied to work items
- +Integrations attach media to existing tickets and workflows
- +Organization-level sharing and permission configuration for governance
- +Clear activity history for reviewed and published media objects
- –Limited control over media data schemas beyond attachment and sharing
- –Automation surface is integration-centric instead of full workflow orchestration
- –RBAC granularity for publishing versus viewing is narrow
- –API-based customization offers fewer extensibility points than workflow tools
Best for: Fits when teams need repeatable capture-to-share workflows with integration attachments and basic governance.
Nimbus Screenshot
browser captureProvides browser-based screen capture and recording with session management, editor tooling, and administrative controls in the supported accounts.
Organization-level capture configuration with governed sharing permissions for repeatable visual documentation.
Nimbus Screenshot is a screenshot capture and annotation workflow tool aimed at teams that need repeatable visual documentation. It distinguishes itself through configuration-driven capture behaviors, role-based access patterns, and export routes that fit common documentation workflows.
Core capabilities center on scheduled or on-demand captures, markup layers, and shareable outputs for review and handoff. Automation depth shows up in how capture rules, sharing permissions, and organization-level settings align with a governed documentation data model.
- +Configurable capture rules reduce manual steps and standardize outputs
- +Annotation layers support review handoffs with consistent markup structure
- +RBAC-style access controls cover who can view, share, and manage assets
- +Export and sharing workflows align with documentation and issue tracking patterns
- –Automation coverage depends on admin configuration rather than fine-grained scripting
- –Extensibility is limited if custom metadata schema is required
- –Audit visibility can be constrained to coarse events instead of per-asset action granularity
- –Automation and API surface for high-throughput capture pipelines is not clearly mapped
Best for: Fits when teams need governed screenshot capture, consistent markup, and controlled sharing for visual documentation workflows.
Monosnap
lightweight captureCaptures screenshots and screen recordings with a local workflow, configurable hotkeys, and share links that can be integrated into documentation pipelines.
Monosnap link sharing for captured media keeps review distribution lightweight.
Monosnap differentiates by centering screen recording capture, annotation, and share delivery into a workflow with lightweight governance options for teams. It supports recurring capture formats like images and videos, plus link-based sharing built around a capture-centric data model.
Integration depth is limited compared with enterprise governance tooling, but automation can still be approached via its public share links and any available developer endpoints. Extensibility and administrative controls are mostly configured through workspace settings rather than deep schema or provisioning automation.
- +Capture-first data model for consistent images and recordings
- +Annotation and markup workflow stays inside the capture lifecycle
- +Link-based sharing reduces integration effort for review workflows
- +Team management features cover basic collaboration and access
- –Automation surface is thin compared to API-first screen tools
- –Provisioning controls and RBAC granularity are limited
- –Audit log and policy enforcement capabilities are not document-forward
- –Data schema export options are not clearly designed for downstream systems
Best for: Fits when teams need fast annotated screenshots and recordings with minimal integration work.
ShareX
open-source captureOpen source screen capture and recording tool for Windows with configurable capture workflows, scripting, and extensible upload destinations.
Task presets that bind capture sources to post-processing and destinations with configurable parameters.
ShareX centers on screenshot capture and file-output automation, with a job-style workflow that routes images and recordings to destinations. Integration depth is mostly local workflow integration through hotkeys, task queues, and destination handlers for common services.
The data model is configuration-driven, with task presets and per-action settings that act like a schema for what gets captured, transformed, and exported. Automation is available through configurable tasks and scripting-style extensibility rather than an external API-first control plane.
- +Hotkey-driven capture workflow with configurable queues and destination routing
- +Preset-based task configuration supports repeatable capture and export schemas
- +Extensible output destinations for images, videos, and text workflows
- +Scripting hooks enable custom transforms before saving or uploading
- –External automation surface is limited compared with API-first systems
- –RBAC and permission boundaries are not a documented governance feature
- –Central audit logging and admin controls are not built into workflows
- –Cross-team provisioning requires shared configuration management rather than APIs
Best for: Fits when single-workstation teams need configurable screenshot automation with output destinations and repeatable task presets.
OBS Studio
capture engineRecords and streams with a flexible scene and source data model, configurable encoders, and scripting to automate capture pipelines.
Scene graph with sources and filters, plus plugins and browser source overlays for configurable streaming pipelines.
OBS Studio records and streams video and audio with real-time scene composition and hardware acceleration. The data model centers on scenes, sources, filters, and transitions, which map cleanly to reproducible capture layouts.
Integration depth is driven by plugins, scene source interfaces, and scripting hooks such as browser sources and community extensions. Automation is primarily configuration driven with limited first-class API coverage, so operational control relies on local workflows and extensibility.
- +Scene, source, and filter graph supports repeatable capture layouts
- +Extensible plugin system adds new inputs, encoders, and outputs
- +Scripting and browser sources enable automated overlays and dynamic content
- +Hardware encoder support improves throughput for high-resolution streams
- –Automation and API surface are limited for external provisioning workflows
- –Centralized admin governance and RBAC are not built into the core application
- –Audit logging and change history require external tooling or custom scripts
- –Multi-user coordination depends on shared local configuration practices
Best for: Fits when capture workflows need configurable scene graphs and extensibility without building server-side automation.
VLC Media Player
capture utilitySupports screen capture on supported platforms via media capture modules with configurable recording options and scripting for capture sessions.
Command-line playback with network stream support for reproducible runs in scripts.
VLC Media Player fits teams that need local, scriptable playback for diverse media formats without a heavyweight server dependency. VLC handles common codecs, transport streams, and network streams like RTSP and HTTP, with playback controls exposed through command-line arguments.
VLC’s integration depth is mostly host-side via CLI and process automation, since it does not provide a first-party REST API or multi-tenant management layer. That model limits admin and governance controls, but it offers high throughput for file and stream playback in controlled environments.
- +Extensive codec and container support for files and network streams
- +Command-line flags enable repeatable playback automation
- +Configurable media settings using local configuration files
- +Cross-platform binaries reduce integration variance across hosts
- –Limited automation surface beyond CLI and basic scripting
- –No first-party REST API for provisioning or remote control
- –Minimal RBAC and audit log support for governed deployments
- –Admin workflows rely on local configuration rather than centralized policy
Best for: Fits when teams need host-side playback automation with minimal infrastructure and no centralized governance requirements.
How to Choose the Right Screencasts Software
This buyer's guide helps teams choose among Scribe, Loom, Vidyard, Soapbox, CloudApp, Nimbus Screenshot, Monosnap, ShareX, OBS Studio, and VLC Media Player for screen capture, video sharing, and internal documentation workflows. The guide focuses on integration depth, data model design, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls that affect multi-team rollout.
The sections map concrete evaluation points to specific tool behaviors like step-to-instruction capture in Scribe and CRM-tied viewer activity in Vidyard. The guide also highlights common failure modes like brittle UI-to-step mapping and weak audit granularity in tools that lean more toward local configuration than policy enforcement.
Screencasts platforms that turn captured screen media into governed assets, feedback, and automated workflows
Screencasts software captures screen and often audio and camera input, then turns that media into shareable assets with review workflows, metadata, and storage. It solves problems like consistent internal how-to documentation, async visual feedback, and media-driven triggers in business systems.
Tools like Loom emphasize timestamped comments tied to specific moments in videos, while Scribe focuses on converting recorded UI actions into editable step-by-step instructions with a structured data model. Soapbox and Nimbus Screenshot target governed publishing and governed capture configuration for teams that need repeatable distribution and access control.
Evaluation checklist for integration, schema, automation APIs, and governance controls
Screencasts tools differ most in how they represent media and workflow objects, which drives how well integrations and automation can work. Scribe and Soapbox treat captured output as structured content, while Loom and Vidyard center on video handling and analytics objects.
Integration depth determines whether the tool can land artifacts into existing systems like tickets and CRMs, while automation and API surface determine whether assets can be provisioned and updated programmatically. Admin and governance controls determine whether access, publishing, and auditing can be enforced across teams without manual cleanup.
Structured instructions data model from recorded UI actions
Scribe captures live steps and produces an editable instructions structure that can be refined after recording. This structured step mapping supports downstream documentation exports and repeatable knowledge workflows that rely on consistent content fields.
Video review objects with timestamped moment context
Loom attaches comments to exact video moments and uses chapters and named viewers to keep feedback tied to the right segment. This reduces back-and-forth when reviews require precise references to what changed on screen.
CRM-connected analytics and event-driven automation hooks
Vidyard connects viewer activity to lead and contact records through Salesforce integration, which enables analytics tied to business entities. Its API supports programmatic metadata updates and event-driven workflows based on viewer behavior.
Programmatic provisioning and governed publishing via API
Soapbox provides API access for provisioning screencast content and views, and it supports governed publishing workflows across teams. This matters when onboarding content pipelines must run from automation rather than manual uploads.
Organization-level capture configuration with RBAC-style sharing controls
Nimbus Screenshot uses organization-level capture configuration and RBAC-style access patterns so teams can standardize outputs and sharing rules. This supports repeatable visual documentation and controlled distribution without every user configuring capture behaviors individually.
Schema-light link and attachment workflows for media distribution
CloudApp uses link-based collaboration and integrates by attaching media into external tickets and workflows. Monosnap also centers link sharing, which keeps review distribution lightweight when deep schema integration is not required.
Decision framework for selecting a screencasts tool with the right integration and governance depth
Start by matching the primary output type to the tool’s data model. Scribe outputs editable step-by-step instructions, while Loom and Vidyard primarily output reviewable videos with collaboration and analytics objects.
Then verify whether automation runs through an API or through local configuration and share links. Soapbox and Scribe support API-focused workflows for provisioning and structured content handling, while ShareX, OBS Studio, and VLC Media Player rely more on local job presets, scene graphs, and command-line automation.
Choose the output type that matches the work product
Select Scribe when the deliverable must be instructions generated from recorded UI actions and later edited into structured steps. Select Loom when the work product is async video feedback with timestamped comments anchored to moments in the recording.
Validate the data model for downstream automation and export
Confirm that Scribe’s editable instructions structure fits the target knowledge repository workflow, because step mapping can need cleanup when UI labels or layouts change. For governed publishing and repeated delivery patterns, prioritize Soapbox’s structured video and view objects that make API automation clearer.
Assess integration depth using the object the system needs
Use Vidyard when CRM-led automation needs viewer activity tied back to lead and contact records via Salesforce. Use CloudApp when teams need media attached to existing tickets and workflows via integrations and link-based collaboration.
Check the automation and API surface for provisioning and updates
Choose Soapbox when programmatic provisioning and access control must be driven through API rather than manual uploads. Choose Scribe when automation needs to convert recorded steps into structured exportable content for downstream systems.
Test governance requirements against RBAC and audit expectations
Select Nimbus Screenshot when organization-level capture configuration and RBAC-style sharing rules must control who can view, share, and manage assets. Select Soapbox when audit log detail and deep governance investigations require more than coarse events, because its API and governed publishing are designed for repeatable team flows.
Pick local automation tools only when centralized policy is not required
Use OBS Studio when scene graphs, browser sources, and plugins must drive capture layouts and overlays with local scripting for automation. Use ShareX for configurable task presets and destination routing on Windows, and use VLC Media Player when command-line playback automation is the only control plane needed.
Who should buy which screencasts tool based on workflow shape and governance needs
Screencasts software fits teams that need more than raw recording files, especially when media must be reviewed, indexed, shared under access rules, or integrated into business systems. The best-fit tool depends on whether the desired output is instructions, review videos, governed content publishing, or local capture automation.
The segments below map directly to each tool’s best-fit workflow shape and its control depth.
Teams producing visual workflow documentation with controlled access and automation-ready exports
Scribe fits because it converts live screen sessions into editable step-by-step instructions using a structured instructions data model. RBAC-style access control and workspace-based governance help separate teams while supporting downstream export workflows.
Customer support, product, and enablement teams running async review with precise moment-level feedback
Loom fits because timestamped comments tie feedback to exact moments in screen and voice recordings. Admin settings focus on who can upload, view, and manage content at account level, which suits teams that need consistent review control.
Sales and marketing teams that must trigger automation from viewer behavior in CRM
Vidyard fits because Salesforce integration ties viewer activity back to lead and contact records. Its API supports programmatic video metadata updates and event-driven workflows based on tracking events.
Internal enablement or knowledge teams that need API-driven provisioning and governed screencast publishing
Soapbox fits because it supports programmatic provisioning and access control via API for screencast content and views. Configuration options support governed publishing workflows across teams that require repeatable release patterns.
IT and documentation teams that standardize capture behavior with organization-level RBAC-style sharing
Nimbus Screenshot fits because it uses organization-level capture configuration and RBAC-style permissions for governed sharing. That combination supports repeatable visual documentation with consistent markup layers.
Pitfalls that cause screencast workflows to break during rollout
Many rollout failures come from choosing a tool that cannot represent the right objects for automation. Other failures come from underestimating how brittle capture-to-structure mapping can be when the UI changes.
The pitfalls below map to specific limitations across the reviewed tools and show which alternative better matches governance and automation needs.
Relying on step capture without planning for UI label and layout drift
Scribe can require manual cleanup when step mapping is affected by UI label or layout changes. For instruction-heavy outputs that must remain stable across UI churn, validate capture flows with representative screens and plan for ongoing refinement of the mapping workflow.
Expecting a video-first tool to provide API-grade workflow orchestration
Loom focuses automation on video handling, while complex workflow logic often needs external tooling. For provisioning and update automation, prioritize Soapbox or Scribe because their API-oriented content and view models align better with automation-heavy pipelines.
Buying for deep governance then landing on coarse audit or thin RBAC granularity
Soapbox provides governed publishing and API provisioning, but its audit log detail can be insufficient for deep investigations and some RBAC granularity can be limited in complex multi-org governance. If audit granularity and fine-grained policy enforcement are central, validate governance requirements early and compare Nimbus Screenshot for governed sharing and configuration controls.
Using local capture automation when centralized control and multi-user governance are required
ShareX, OBS Studio, and VLC Media Player provide local automation via presets, scene graphs, and command-line flags, but they do not provide centralized admin governance and RBAC as a core feature. For cross-team administration and policy enforcement, use Scribe, Loom, Soapbox, or Nimbus Screenshot instead.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Scribe, Loom, Vidyard, Soapbox, CloudApp, Nimbus Screenshot, Monosnap, ShareX, OBS Studio, and VLC Media Player using criteria grounded in features, ease of use, and value, with features carrying the most weight and ease of use and value each taking a meaningful share. The overall rating is a weighted average that favors measurable workflow capabilities like API provisioning, structured content models, and governed access controls.
Scribe separated itself by turning live screen actions into editable step-by-step instructions backed by a structured instructions data model. That capability lifted it primarily on features while also supporting ease of use for teams that need post-recording refinement and automation-ready exports.
Frequently Asked Questions About Screencasts Software
Which tool is best for turning live screen sessions into editable step-by-step documentation?
How do Loom and Soapbox differ in collaboration workflow and governed publishing?
Which platform has the most direct integration path into CRM records and viewer tracking events?
What security controls and access governance are commonly expected for team-wide screencast sharing?
Which tool supports API-based automation for provisioning and content updates?
How does data migration usually work when moving from one documentation workflow to another?
Which option is most suitable for governed screenshot and markup workflows with consistent capture rules?
What are the technical tradeoffs between OBS Studio and VLC for screen capture and playback automation?
When is ShareX the better fit than a browser-first tool like Loom?
How do admin controls and RBAC expectations differ between enterprise video governance and workstation capture tools?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 technology digital media, Scribe 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.