How we compare
This page exists so you can judge how much weight to give the rest of the site. It sets out what we do, what we deliberately do not do, and how we are paid.
What we do
We take four language-learning services that are frequently compared against each other, establish what format of teaching each one actually sells, and score them against a fixed rubric so the differences are visible in one place. The information comes from each provider's own website, help centre and terms.
What we do not do
We do not test these services. We have not enrolled in every course, sat exams, measured learning outcomes or timed lessons. We have not run a controlled comparison, because a fair one between a five-minute vocabulary app and a private tutor would take months per language per level and would still only tell you about one learner.
We say this plainly because the alternative — implying testing that never happened — is common on comparison sites and is a good reason to distrust them. Our scores are an editorial judgement about published information, nothing more.
The scoring rubric
Every service is assessed against the same four criteria. The headline score is the weighted average, calculated in code from the four sub-scores you can see on each card, so the number and its components can never disagree.
| Criterion | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Course structure | 30% | Whether there is a curriculum, who decides what you study next, whether progress maps to a recognised standard such as CEFR, and whether anyone corrects your mistakes. |
| Speaking practice | 30% | How much live practice with another person the format actually provides, and how early in the course it starts. |
| Flexibility | 20% | Whether you must hold a fixed slot, how far ahead you commit, how easily you can pause or stop, and whether lessons can move. |
| Value | 20% | Plan structure, whether a free tier exists, and what an hour of actual teaching costs rather than what the headline price is. |
Two judgements are built into those weights, and you may disagree with either. First, speaking practice is weighted as heavily as structure, because it is the skill people most often say they wanted and least often get. Second, price is only a fifth of the score, because the most expensive mistake in language learning is not overpaying — it is paying for a format you then abandon.
Why a low score is not a warning
The four services here do different jobs. A five-minute daily drill scores low on speaking practice by design, and that is exactly the right choice for someone with ten minutes a day who wants travel phrases. A single ranked list flattens that, so every card also carries a plain statement of who should skip it. Read those before you read the number.
How we are paid
Every outbound link on this site is an affiliate link. If you subscribe after clicking one, the provider pays us a commission. You pay the same price either way.
Two consequences you should know about:
- Selection. We can only feature services that run an affiliate programme we have access to. There are language-learning services on the market that are not on this page, and their absence says nothing about their quality.
- Rates differ. Commission rates are not the same across the four. That is a real incentive. The honest defences against it are a rubric fixed before the scoring, published weights, and a statement on every card of who the service is wrong for.
No provider pays us for placement, position, a better score or a favourable write-up, and none of them reviews this page before it goes live.
Keeping it current
Course details and prices change often. We recheck the published details on a fixed schedule and date-stamp the page. If you find something out of date or wrong, please tell us — corrections are the cheapest way for us to stay worth reading.
Not advice. Nothing on this site is educational, financial or contractual advice. Check the current terms, price and availability on the provider's own website before you subscribe.