Four tools do the inbox. One of them can prove the money.

What only FanOptik does.

Eight of the 17 rows where we stand alone. Each is a thing you can verify on your own roster during a pilot, and none of the other three publishes it.

All 41 rowsHow every number is made

Cheapest on six of the nine rosters.

Each row multiplies out the published ladders. At fifty creators averaging $15,000 the gap against Infloww is $84,612 a year, and against CreatorHero it is $99,606. Monthly figures, before any annual discount.

You keep is measured against the cheapest of the other three on that row, not the dearest. The three rows with no saving are small rosters of modest earners, where the per creator products start below our $349 floor. Past roughly ten creators, or around $3,000 average earnings, the lines cross and the gap widens every month your roster improves.

Run your own numbers

Three of these bills climb with your creator. One does not.

The other three attach their price to what each creator earns, so a good month raises your software cost and keeps it raised. Ours is attached to the size of the roster, which does not move when somebody has a record week.

FanOptik works out between $29 and $40 per creator across every plan we publish, whatever that creator earns. The figure drawn is the Growth plan, $849 for twenty-five creators, which is $33.96 each. The three bars beside it are each vendor’s own published ladder, end to end.

Per creator it looks small. Across a roster of fifty, every creator who moves up a band moves your bill up with them, for good. That is the part that does not show up in a demo.

All 41 rows.

The 17 cells in green are the rows where FanOptik is the only one of the four to publish the capability at all. The five rows in amber go against us. Not published means the vendor does not state it publicly, so neither do we: it is not a no.

Sources: infloww.com, onlymonster.ai and creatorhero.com, read on 21 September 2026. FanOptik rows are product facts you can verify on your own roster during a pilot, and the ones about money are specified on the methodology page.

Eight questions to ask any tool in this category.

Including us. Most have nothing to do with which product you end up choosing, and all of them are harder to answer than a feature list.

Where the others are stronger.

Five of the 41 rows go against us and they stay in the table, because a comparison with no losses in it is marketing rather than information. If one of these decides it for you, go with them.

How we write about other people’s products.

Their own material only. Everything here comes from that vendor’s public pricing page, documentation or website, and we link it: never rumour, never a screenshot somebody sent us. Dated, always. Every table carries the date it was checked, because products in this market change weekly and an undated comparison is a claim with no shelf life. Not published is not a no. Where a vendor does not state something publicly the cell says so, and we do not convert silence into a missing feature even when it would help us. Corrections without conditions. If you work at one of these companies and something here is wrong, tell us and we will fix it, with nothing attached. The same four rules are published on the references page and applied to every table on this site.