Editorial policy

Who writes this

Tested Clips is written and edited by the video editing team behind videoeditingservice.net, an online editing service working with creators, agencies and business owners. Research is carried out by that team; there are no guest posts, no syndicated copy and no AI-generated articles published under a human byline.

How we choose what to cover

We cover tools people are actually deciding between, which means the list is shaped by what readers search for rather than by what a vendor would like reviewed. Nobody can pay to be added, removed, or moved up a page.

We deliberately publish tools that pay us nothing. At the time of writing that includes Google Flow, Sora, Luma, Vidu and CapCut, each marked on the page so you can see which is which.

How findings are reached

Every material claim is traced to a source with a URL and an access date. Sources are weighted by how closely they match the exact model version, how directly they address the question, and how recent they are. Official documentation is treated as strong evidence that a feature exists and weak evidence that it works well.

Findings carry one of five confidence levels, and where our evidence coverage falls below threshold we withhold the verdict rather than publish a number the sources cannot support. The methodology page sets out the weighting, the thresholds and the confidence definitions in full.

We do not run controlled tests. We do not generate clips, and we never imply that we do.

How recommendations are made

Recommendations are always scoped to a use case and a user, never to a single overall winner. "Best for cinematic look development" and "best for corporate training" are different questions with different answers, and a tool that wins one may be irrelevant to the other.

We do not rank across product categories. An avatar platform and a cinematic generative model do different jobs; putting them on one scale would be a category error, so the site is structured to prevent it.

Independence

• No paid placement. Position, inclusion and wording are not for sale.
• No vendor accounts, briefings or review copy. Where a source we cite disclosed a complimentary account, we note it beside the finding.
• No embargo agreements. We do not trade coverage timing for access.
• Commission never changes a finding. Where a tool pays well and the evidence is thin, the evidence is what gets published.

Our own conflict of interest

We sell human video editing, and several tools covered here automate work we are paid to do. We would rather state that plainly than have you discover it later.

It cuts both ways: it gives us production experience most reviewers lack, and it gives us a commercial interest in the limits of these tools. Judge the research on its sources, which is why every one is listed.

Corrections

If you think a finding is wrong, or you know a source we missed, write to admin@testedclips.com. We re-research and publish the outcome either way, including when the re-check says the original stands.

Corrections are noted on the page rather than quietly edited in. Every page carries the date it was last researched so you can judge how stale it is. Pricing is re-checked when a vendor changes plans; findings are re-checked when a tool ships a new named model.

What we will not publish

• A rating we did not derive from stated evidence
• Aggregate review scores from sources that do not publish their method
• Marketing claims presented as performance findings
• A verdict where our evidence coverage does not support one
• A cross-category winner