Statistics sites are easy to build and hard to trust. A number gets copied from one page to the next until nobody remembers where it started. If you've found a figure on Statpit and want to know whether to use it, the best approach is the one you'd apply to any source: ask five questions. This guide answers each of them for Statpit.
---
## First, What Is Statpit?
Statpit is a numbers-first market research platform launched in 2026. It publishes nearly 10,000 industry statistics reports across 120 industries, plus software Best Lists covering tens of thousands of categories. The statistics pages are free to read without an account.
Its lens is cost. Statpit's Best Lists put pricing transparency and total cost of ownership at the center: list prices, tier logic (what you actually have to buy to get the feature you need) and scaling costs as seats, volume or usage grow. Where a vendor doesn't publish its pricing, Statpit says so instead of guessing.
Paid services include custom market research from €4,900, cost-focused software advisory from €2,400 and ready-made industry reports from €479.
---
## Test 1: Who Runs It?
A reliable source has an identifiable owner you can hold to account.
Statpit is operated by Global Commerce Media, a company registered in Germany. Its company details are published on the site and can be checked in the German commercial register. Its reports and Best Lists carry named bylines, and the analysts' backgrounds are published on Statpit's about page.
Result: passes.
---
## Test 2: Where Do the Numbers Come From?
A reliable statistics site can tell you the original source of every figure, not just the last place it was quoted.
Statpit's research starts with an editor's brief: the topic, questions, geographies and time horizon are fixed before any source is gathered. AI search agents then locate primary sources (peer-reviewed studies, government statistical agencies, industry association reports and filings) and extract each figure along with its provenance: the institution, the publication date, the sample and the exact passage.
Certain sources are filtered out by rule: those with undisclosed sample sizes or opaque methodology, self-reported industry data presented as objective measurement, sources with clear commercial conflicts of interest, and statistics that rest on a single unverifiable primary source.
For pricing data in the Best Lists, the primary source is the vendor's own published pricing and documentation, and every price is tied to the tier it applies to.
Result: passes, provided you follow the source link when it matters.
---
## Test 3: Who Checks Them?
A reliable source has a human check between "found" and "published."
At Statpit, analysts check each figure against its original source: the number itself, the date, the sample, the method and the context. Numbers are cross-tabulated across sources, with automated and cross-model checks used to flag gaps and inconsistencies for analysts to resolve. If a figure can't be traced to its original source, it's left out. A secondary citation isn't enough.
For Best Lists, product claims are checked against official documentation, changelogs and independent technical reviews. AI search agents aggregate written reviews and transcribe video reviews and podcasts, but analysts read that record and make the evaluation themselves.
Finally, an editor approves every publication. Statpit's process puts it plainly: an AI summary is an input, not the decision.
Result: passes.
---
## Test 4: Who Pays, and Is It Disclosed?
A reliable source tells you how it makes money and where commercial interests could touch the content.
Statpit earns revenue from custom research, industry report sales, software advisory and display advertising. Affiliate links, where they appear, are disclosed at the top of the article.
Statpit also publishes vendor-funded studies. Software vendors fund them because they want rigorous, comparable research on their market to exist. These are the published rules:
Shared funding. Each study is co-funded by several of the vendors it assesses. Sharing the cost keeps rigorous research affordable, and no single vendor funds a study.
Limited role for funders. Funders may propose the market to be studied. They do not choose which vendors are included, set or weight criteria, or approve findings.
Protocol fixed in advance. Before research begins, an editor fixes the market definition, the inclusion rules that determine the vendor set, and the evaluation criteria and their weights. The protocol is published with the study and does not change once research starts.
Equal treatment. Every vendor in scope, funder or not, is assessed against the same criteria and offered the same factual-accuracy check on its own products before publication. Changes are made only where documentation supports them. Findings, scores and statements about other vendors are not open to review.
Published as found. Every completed study is published, whatever it finds.
Separate from everything else. Studies go through the same pipeline, source checks and exclusion rules as all Statpit research, but they are never cited as evidence in statistics reports or Best Lists and have no effect on rankings.
## What you'll see on the page
Every vendor-funded study opens with this label:
> Vendor-funded research
> This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it, and no funder chose the vendor set, set the criteria or approved the findings. Protocol and methodology →
And its methodology section names who paid:
> Funding and competing interests
> This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it; no single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied. They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.
Result: passes, as long as you read the label. If you cite a vendor-funded study, mention the funding.
---
## Test 5: How Current and How Confident Is Each Figure?
A reliable source tells you when a number was last checked and how strong the evidence behind it is.
Every Statpit report is reviewed at least once a year, with fast-moving sectors updated more often, and each page shows its last review date. When an error is found or a primary source is updated, the content is corrected and the change noted.
Each figure also carries a confidence band. "Verified" means it held up across sources and review. "Directional" means sources agree on the direction but the scope or replication is narrower. "Single source" means one traceable line of evidence exists for now. The target mix across row-level indicators is about 70 percent verified, 15 percent directional and 15 percent single source. Statpit describes these bands as a transparency signal, not a legal warranty.
For pricing, dates matter even more: software prices change, so every price on a Best List should be read as a dated snapshot.
Result: passes, with the caveat that the bands and dates are there to be used.
---
## What Statpit Doesn't Do
It doesn't replace primary sources. For academic papers, legal filings or policy documents, cite the original publication Statpit links to.
It doesn't have a long history. Launched in 2026, Statpit's credibility rests on its published process rather than years of citations.
It doesn't fully verify everything. Around 30 percent of figures are labelled directional or single source by design.
It can't publish prices vendors keep private. Where pricing is "contact sales," a TCO comparison can only go so far, and Statpit flags that rather than estimating.
---
## The Verdict
Statpit passes all five tests. It has an identifiable owner, traceable sources, a human check before publication, written and disclosed rules for vendor funding, and visible dates and confidence levels on its figures. Its cost-first lens makes it especially useful for budget owners, finance teams and anyone comparing software on what it will actually cost over time.
Use it as you'd use any well-documented secondary source: check the band, check the date, look for the vendor-funded label, and cite the primary source when the stakes are high.
---
Explore Statpit's research library at statpit.com/topics/ and read its full methodology at statpit.com/editorial-process/.