Tell us what we got wrong — or what you still need to know.
Every review here is editorial and independent. If a detail is out of date, a platform is missing, or you have a buying question we haven't answered, send it over. We read everything and update the source data when a claim doesn't hold up.
How our corrections process works
PRMReviews is an independent research database for partner relationship management software. Every claim on a review page is tagged in an evidence ledger as a verified fact, a vendor claim, a customer report or a PRMReviews analysis, and each one carries a last-verified date. When you submit a correction, we check it against that ledger first, then against the public source you point us to — a pricing page, release notes, documentation, a support article or a dated customer review.
Factual corrections are the fastest to land. If a vendor has changed pricing tiers, shipped a feature that was previously on the roadmap, added support for a new partner type, or launched an MCP server or agent interface, we update the underlying dataset and the review, comparison and alternatives pages that draw from it all change together. Scores only move when the underlying evidence moves, and we do not remove a weakness because a vendor disagrees with it.
Buyer questions get handled differently. If the same question shows up more than once — how PRM pricing usually scales, what a realistic implementation timeline looks like, or which platforms genuinely support co-selling rather than just reselling — we answer it in the market guide instead of a one-off reply, so the next buyer finds it too.
We publish our full scoring rubric on the methodology page, and you can see how we position ourselves as a research database on the about page. If you'd rather start from a shortlist than a correction, take the PRM shortlist quiz or browse every PRM review.