MemetikEdition 2026-09

Lists / AI media

Best AI video generators for content creators (2026): What ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini Recommend

Veo is named in all 50 recorded AI answers on video tools for creators, Runway in 46. A ranked list of 16 generators by how often 10 AI models name them.

Veo is the AI video generator that AI models name most for content creators. It appears in 50 of 50 recorded answers and comes first in 28 of them. Runway follows, named in 46 of 50 and first in 14. Kling and Sora complete the usual shortlist. This ranking counts the products named by 10 AI models in the 2026-09 edition. It does not test video quality.

TL;DR

1. Veo

Pick Veo as the first tool to trial if you want the one name every model on the panel puts forward for creator video.

Measured: named 50 of 50 (Veo 100%), first 28 of 50 (Veo 56%), average position 1.66.

Veo is Google’s video model, and it is the only product the panel never leaves out. The agreement crosses companies. OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s models name a Google product in every answer, so the result is not one company’s assistant favouring its own tool. The gap sits in the opening slot. When the question is framed around a creator’s workflow, several OpenAI answers lead with Runway and bring in Veo second. For a creator, Veo is the first name to test, and it is worth checking which app gives you access to it before you commit. See the Veo vendor page.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, enterprise and studio-level video generation and teams building AI video into broader pipelines.

2. Runway

Pick Runway if you want generation and editing in one workspace, the reason the models give when they put it first for creators.

Measured: named 46 of 50 (Runway 92%), first 14 of 50 (Runway 28%), average position 2.46.

Runway appears in almost every answer, and the models explain it through workflow rather than raw output. ChatGPT’s answer on Runway says “it is not just a text-to-video generator” and goes on to describe editing, iteration and export tools. The Entrepreneur contributor piece names Runway for removing backgrounds, customising frames, adding effects and creating video from text prompts. Frameo’s guide places it between raw model capability and creator tooling, trading simplicity for flexibility. Runway’s own documentation is part of what the models read: help.runwayml.com and runwayml.com both appear among the vendor-owned hosts in the recorded citations. See the Runway vendor page.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, designers, creative professionals and teams that want fine-grained control over visuals.

3. Kling

Pick Kling if you research tools through Claude or Gemini, which name it in every answer, and want the usual third name on a cinematic shortlist.

Measured: named 40 of 50 (Kling 80%), first 2 of 50 (Kling 4%), average position 3.

Kling carries the widest named-versus-first gap on the panel. The models list it often and almost never lead with it. The split explains the total. Claude Opus 5, Claude, Claude Fable 5, Gemini, Gemini 3.5 Flash and Sonar Reasoning Pro name it in all five answers. ChatGPT names it once. One Claude answer cites a public leaderboard that places Kling at the top for text-to-video, which is the kind of source that pushes a model’s shortlist toward it. For a buyer, that means Kling is a strong visibility name with a narrow opening record. See the Kling vendor page.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, technical demonstrations, cinematic experiments and evaluating motion realism.

4. Sora

Pick Sora only if you already work inside OpenAI’s products, because its naming comes mostly from OpenAI and Anthropic models and one recorded answer warns against starting new projects on it.

Measured: named 35 of 50 (Sora 70%), first 2 of 50 (Sora 4%), average position 5.09.

Sora is OpenAI’s video model, and its count splits by company. GPT-5.6 Sol, ChatGPT, Claude Opus 5 and Claude name it in all five answers. Gemini 3.5 Flash names it once. It usually appears after the leaders, not beside them. The total also hides a warning. GPT-5.6 Sol listed Sora as “capable, but being discontinued; avoid for new projects”. That is a model’s claim, not a fact this page has verified, but it shows why being named is not the same as being recommended. Check Sora’s current status with OpenAI before building a workflow on it. See the Sora vendor page.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, experimental storytelling and concept visualisation.

5. HeyGen

Pick HeyGen if you are adding a specialist tool beside a general generator and you research with Perplexity’s models, which name it most.

Measured: named 24 of 50 (HeyGen 48%), first 0 of 50 (HeyGen 0%), average position 4.92.

HeyGen never opens an answer, yet it appears in nearly half of them. The models treat it as a second tool, not a first choice. Sonar Reasoning Pro groups it with Synthesia as a more specialised tool to add once a creator’s needs become more advanced. Its visibility has a clear source. heygen.com is the most-cited vendor-owned host in the run, and HeyGen’s own blog roundups of AI video generators sit in the citations the models read. ChatGPT and Claude never name it. A buyer who asks only those two assistants will not see HeyGen at all, and a buyer who asks Perplexity will see it in most answers. See the HeyGen vendor page.

Pros

Cons

6. Seedance

Pick Seedance if you research with Anthropic’s models and want the one challenger outside the top four that sometimes takes the opening slot.

Measured: named 22 of 50 (Seedance 44%), first 4 of 50 (Seedance 8%), average position 3.23.

Seedance is ByteDance’s video model. It shows the sharpest company split on the panel. None of OpenAI’s three models names it in any answer. Claude Opus 5 names it in all five, and both Claude Opus 5 and Claude Fable 5 open answers with it, describing it as a leading pick in the roundups they cite. When the models do name Seedance, they place it high, with a better average position than Sora, HeyGen or Synthesia. It is one of only five products ever named first. Frameo’s guide links its design to ByteDance’s grounding in short-form video. A buyer who asks only ChatGPT will never hear of it.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, platforms building short-form AI video experiences and studios exploring newer video models.

7. Synthesia

Pick Synthesia if your videos are presenter-led training or explainers rather than cinematic clips.

Measured: named 19 of 50 (Synthesia 38%), first 0 of 50 (Synthesia 0%), average position 5.74.

Synthesia is a different kind of product from the leaders. Frameo’s guide describes it as focused on avatar-driven, presenter-style content rather than cinematic or story-based video. The models place it late when they name it, and none ever opens with it. Sonar Reasoning Pro, for one, names it in an answer that splits creator needs by use case. Its pattern tracks HeyGen’s closely. Both are missing from ChatGPT and Claude, and both draw steady naming from Perplexity’s models. synthesia.io is cited 15 times, so the vendor’s own content feeds part of the count. A creator making cinematic short-form video can pass on it. A creator making training or explainer video should compare it directly with HeyGen. See the Synthesia vendor page.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, corporate training and onboarding, product explainers and instructional video.

8. Luma

Pick Luma if you are new to AI video and want a quick first experiment, especially if Gemini is the assistant you ask.

Measured: named 16 of 50 (Luma 32%), first 0 of 50 (Luma 0%), average position 5.5.

Luma’s video product is Dream Machine, and the panel counts both names as Luma. Gemini names it in 4 of 5 answers, more than any other model. ChatGPT and Sonar Reasoning Pro never name it. Gemini’s recorded answer to the first panel question places Luma Dream Machine in its cinematic-quality group beside Runway and Kling. Frameo’s guide puts it at the accessible end of the market, praised for how quickly users can generate clips with minimal setup. The count says the models know Luma but rarely rank it near the top. It suits a creator testing the category before paying for a heavier tool.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, beginners, casual creators and quick visual experiments.

9. Adobe Firefly

Pick Adobe Firefly if you already work in Adobe’s apps and take advice from OpenAI’s models, which account for most of its naming.

Measured: named 15 of 50 (Adobe Firefly 30%), first 0 of 50 (Adobe Firefly 0%), average position 4.

Adobe Firefly is the mirror image of Seedance. OpenAI’s models name it often and the others barely do. Claude Opus 5, Gemini and Gemini 3.5 Flash never name it. The OpenAI answers cite Adobe’s own newsroom press releases, so the naming follows documents those models retrieved. GPT-5.6 Luna’s comparison answer labels Firefly the commercial and IP-conscious option. For a creator already paying for Adobe tools, that context matters more than the count. For anyone else, the low naming outside OpenAI says to start elsewhere.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Next Growth Media, professional designers and creative agencies.

10. Pika

Pick Pika if you make fast, casual social clips and want a light tool, knowing the models place it low when they name it.

Measured: named 14 of 50 (Pika 28%), first 0 of 50 (Pika 0%), average position 5.93.

Pika has a broad but thin naming pattern. Seven models name it, none more than three times. GPT-5.6 Luna and Sonar Reasoning Pro name it most. GPT-5.6 Luna’s comparison answer labels Pika the pick for rapid social-media creation. ChatGPT, Claude Opus 5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash never name it. Its late average position says it tends to close a list rather than open one. That fits a tool the models offer as a quick social option, not as a main generator.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Frameo, social media experimentation and casual creators testing AI video.

11. Higgsfield

Pick Higgsfield only as a name to check if Gemini or Claude surfaces it, because OpenAI’s models and Perplexity do not.

Measured: named 13 of 50 (Higgsfield 26%), first 0 of 50 (Higgsfield 0%), average position 6.46.

Higgsfield is a Google and Anthropic name in this run. Gemini names it in 4 of 5 answers and Claude in 3 of 5. None of OpenAI’s three models names it, and Perplexity does not either. Within the Google family it sits level with HeyGen. Its own site is cited often, second among vendor-owned hosts, and Higgsfield’s blog roundup of AI video generators appears in Claude’s recorded citations. That is the same pattern as HeyGen: vendor content feeding the answers that name the vendor. No captured comparison page covers Higgsfield, so there is no third-party description to report here.

Pros

Cons

12. Wan

Pick Wan only if you research with Anthropic’s models or Gemini 3.5 Flash and want an option outside the main shortlist.

Measured: named 7 of 50 (Wan 14%), first 0 of 50 (Wan 0%), average position 6.29.

Wan appears in a narrow slice of the panel. Claude Opus 5, Claude, Claude Fable 5 and Gemini 3.5 Flash name it, and the count records no other model doing so. One Sonar Reasoning Pro answer lists Wan among high-end API models, which suggests some models see it as a developer-facing option rather than a creator app. That is the models’ framing, not a tested fact. The same answer spells the name in capitals, and the split records no Wan mention from that model, a limit of string matching covered below. No captured comparison page covers Wan. For most creators it is a name to note, not a first trial.

Pros

Cons

13. LTX

Pick LTX only if an Anthropic model or Gemini brings it up for a specific need, since it sits outside every shortlist the other models build.

Measured: named 7 of 50 (LTX 14%), first 0 of 50 (LTX 0%), average position 6.43.

LTX ties Wan on count and follows a similar company pattern. Claude Opus 5, Claude, Claude Fable 5, Gemini and Gemini 3.5 Flash name it. OpenAI’s and Perplexity’s models do not. One Claude answer cites an LTX blog post about open-source video generation models, so the vendor’s own content reached at least one recorded answer. No captured comparison page covers LTX, and the record holds no pricing or product description to add. Its count is too small to separate it from Wan on visibility alone. Treat it as a name to check after the main shortlist, not before.

Pros

Cons

14. Hailuo

Pick Hailuo only as a later test, because the models that name it do so once or twice at most.

Measured: named 5 of 50 (Hailuo 10%), first 0 of 50 (Hailuo 0%), average position 6.4.

Hailuo reaches three model families despite a small count. Claude, Gemini, Perplexity and Sonar Reasoning Pro each name it, and Gemini is the only model to do so twice. The panel counts the name MiniMax as Hailuo, so either name in an answer registers here. No OpenAI model names it. No captured comparison page covers it. The spread is wide but the depth is thin. That makes Hailuo a name to recognise when an assistant mentions it, rather than a tool to trial before the leaders.

Pros

Cons

15. Midjourney

Pick Midjourney for still images alongside a video tool, not as the video generator itself, which matches how rarely the models name it here.

Measured: named 4 of 50 (Midjourney 8%), first 0 of 50 (Midjourney 0%), average position 4.5.

Midjourney is known for images. Next Growth Media’s guide lists it under image generation, creating artwork from simple text prompts. The panel names it rarely in video answers. GPT-5.6 Sol, GPT-5.6 Luna, Gemini and Gemini 3.5 Flash each name it once. No Anthropic or Perplexity model names it. When it does appear, it sits mid-list rather than at the end. For a creator choosing a video generator, it is a companion for still images, not a replacement for the leaders. Keep it for thumbnails and stills if you already use it.

Pros

Cons

Best for: per Next Growth Media, YouTube thumbnails, social media creatives and branding projects.

16. Krea

Pick Krea only if an Anthropic model raises it for a specific need, because no other model names it.

Measured: named 2 of 50 (Krea 4%), first 0 of 50 (Krea 0%), average position 8.5.

Krea sits at the edge of the panel. Claude Opus 5 and Claude Fable 5 each name it once. When it appears, it comes near the end of the list. No captured comparison page covers it, and the record holds no description to report. One product tracked in this category, Freepik, was never named at all, so Krea at least registers. For a creator building a shortlist, a count this small is a signal to note rather than act on. Revisit it in a later edition if the naming grows.

Pros

Cons

What counts as an AI video generator here?

An AI video generator produces video clips from a text prompt or an image. Frameo’s guide splits the category into two layers: foundation models such as Sora, Veo and Seedance, and creator platforms built on top of them. The panel tracks 17 vendors across both layers. It also tracks presenter tools such as Synthesia and HeyGen and image-first names such as Midjourney and Adobe Firefly, because the models name them when creators ask. A vendor counts when an answer uses any of its tracked names. Luma counts for Dream Machine, Hailuo counts for MiniMax and Adobe Firefly counts for Firefly.

How do the tools compare?

Vendor Named Share Named first First share Avg position Pricing model
Veo 50/50 100% 28/50 56% 1.66 Not recorded
Runway 46/50 92% 14/50 28% 2.46 Not recorded
Kling 40/50 80% 2/50 4% 3 Not recorded
Sora 35/50 70% 2/50 4% 5.09 Not recorded
HeyGen 24/50 48% 0/50 0% 4.92 Not recorded
Seedance 22/50 44% 4/50 8% 3.23 Not recorded
Synthesia 19/50 38% 0/50 0% 5.74 Not recorded
Luma 16/50 32% 0/50 0% 5.5 Not recorded
Adobe Firefly 15/50 30% 0/50 0% 4 Not recorded
Pika 14/50 28% 0/50 0% 5.93 Not recorded
Higgsfield 13/50 26% 0/50 0% 6.46 Not recorded
Wan 7/50 14% 0/50 0% 6.29 Not recorded
LTX 7/50 14% 0/50 0% 6.43 Not recorded
Hailuo 5/50 10% 0/50 0% 6.4 Not recorded
Midjourney 4/50 8% 0/50 0% 4.5 Not recorded
Krea 2/50 4% 0/50 0% 8.5 Not recorded

Veo leads on every column. Runway is the only other product the models name in nearly every answer. Below those two, the table splits. Kling and Sora are named in most answers but open almost none. From HeyGen down, no product is named first except Seedance, which opens a few answers from a smaller base and holds the best average position outside the top three. No pricing is recorded in this edition’s vendor data, so the pricing column is empty by design. Check pricing and plan limits on each vendor’s own site. The full category index is at /index/ai-video-generation.

Where do the models disagree?

The models agree on the leader and disagree on almost everything after second place. All ten name Veo in every answer. Runway is close to unanimous. From third place down, the company behind the assistant shapes the list.

Vendor GPT-5.6 Sol ChatGPT GPT-5.6 Luna Claude Opus 5 Claude Claude Fable 5 Gemini Gemini 3.5 Flash Perplexity Sonar Reasoning Pro
Veo 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5
Runway 4/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 5/5 5/5
Kling 2/5 1/5 4/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 3/5 5/5
Sora 5/5 5/5 4/5 5/5 5/5 3/5 3/5 1/5 2/5 2/5
HeyGen 2/5 0/5 2/5 3/5 0/5 3/5 3/5 3/5 4/5 4/5
Seedance 0/5 0/5 0/5 5/5 4/5 3/5 2/5 3/5 2/5 3/5
Synthesia 2/5 0/5 1/5 3/5 0/5 3/5 2/5 2/5 3/5 3/5
Luma 1/5 0/5 3/5 2/5 3/5 1/5 4/5 1/5 1/5 0/5
Adobe Firefly 3/5 4/5 4/5 0/5 1/5 1/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 1/5
Pika 2/5 0/5 3/5 0/5 2/5 1/5 2/5 0/5 1/5 3/5
Higgsfield 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 3/5 2/5 4/5 2/5 0/5 1/5
Wan 0/5 0/5 0/5 2/5 2/5 1/5 0/5 2/5 0/5 0/5
LTX 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 2/5 2/5 1/5 1/5 0/5 0/5
Hailuo 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 0/5 2/5 0/5 1/5 1/5
Midjourney 1/5 0/5 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 1/5 0/5 0/5
Krea 0/5 0/5 0/5 1/5 0/5 1/5 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/5

Model by model, the sharpest splits are these:

Ranked by family, the top five differ after first place. OpenAI’s list runs Veo, Runway, Sora, Adobe Firefly, Kling. Anthropic’s runs Veo, Kling, Runway, Sora, Seedance. Google’s runs Veo, Kling, Runway, HeyGen, Higgsfield. Perplexity’s runs Veo, Runway, Kling, HeyGen, Synthesia. The models acknowledge the spread themselves. Claude Opus 5 put it plainly in one answer: “There’s no single best tool.”

Why does the shortlist change with the assistant?

The shortlist changes because each assistant reads different sources, and the recorded citations show it. This is the finding the tables alone cannot prove.

The measured part is plain. Within the OpenAI family, Adobe Firefly 73.3% and Kling 46.7%, and Seedance is never named. Within the Anthropic family, Kling 100% and Seedance 80%, and Adobe Firefly barely appears.

The citations attached to those answers differ in kind. The OpenAI answers cite vendor sources: Runway’s help centre, deepmind.google, Adobe’s newsroom press releases and openai.com. The Claude answers cite third-party roundups and leaderboards: pinggy.io, pixverse.ai, pickaxe.co, invideo.io, atlascloud.ai and llm-stats.com.

The reading of that pattern is an inference, not a measurement. A model that reads vendor documentation names the vendors whose documents it retrieved, which is how Adobe Firefly reaches the OpenAI shortlist. A model that reads roundups and leaderboards names what those pages rank highly, which is how Kling and Seedance reach the Anthropic shortlist. Vendor content also feeds the lower ranks directly: heygen.com, higgsfield.ai and synthesia.io all appear among the vendor-owned hosts cited in the run. ChatGPT flagged the same problem inside one of its own answers about Veo, telling its reader to “treat those as vendor-reported benchmarks, not a neutral universal ranking”.

For a buyer, the consequence is practical. One assistant’s shortlist reflects that assistant’s reading list. Gemini 3.5 Flash described creators moving to platforms that combine several models “rather than subscribing to a single company’s closed ecosystem”.

What should a buyer do with these counts?

Use the counts to decide what to trial first, then let your own tests decide what to keep.

  1. Trial Veo and Runway first. They are the only two names the models give in nearly every answer, and they are framed differently: Veo as the model, Runway as the workspace.
  2. Add Kling or Seedance as a third trial if you make cinematic short-form video. Both lean on Anthropic and Google naming, so a Claude or Gemini assistant is more likely to raise them than ChatGPT.
  3. Look at HeyGen and Synthesia instead of the cinematic leaders if your videos are presenter-led, such as training or explainers.
  4. Ask two assistants from different companies before settling on a shortlist. The split shows how much one company’s reading list shapes the answer.
  5. Confirm pricing, plan limits and product status on each vendor’s site. This edition records no pricing, and the Sora warning in one answer is unverified.
  6. Test every tool on your own footage and formats. The counts measure naming, not output.

How the panel runs is set out in the method.

How was the sample built?

The sample is 10 models x 5 fixed prompts = 50 recorded answers, in the 2026-09 edition. Every model answered these five questions:

  1. What is the best AI video generation model or tool for a content creator? Name specific products.
  2. Which AI video generation model or tool would you recommend to a content creator in 2026?
  3. Compare the top AI video generation model or tool options right now.
  4. I’m a content creator and I need an AI video generation model or tool. What should I use and why?
  5. Best AI video generation model or tool for cinematic short-form video?

The models come from four families. OpenAI supplies GPT-5.6 Sol, ChatGPT and GPT-5.6 Luna, for 15 answers. Anthropic supplies Claude Opus 5, Claude and Claude Fable 5, for 15 answers. Google supplies Gemini and Gemini 3.5 Flash, for 10 answers. Perplexity supplies Perplexity and Sonar Reasoning Pro, for 10 answers.

Answer share is the share of the 50 recorded answers that named a product. Named first is the share where it appeared before any other tracked product. The panel tracked 17 vendors and 16 were named. Freepik was tracked and never named, so it carries no row.

How does this page differ from other AI video guides?

The captured guides rank tools for purchase or describe an author’s picks. This page counts the names AI answers produce and shows which models produce them.

Frameo’s guide is written by a video platform and ranks Frameo’s own product first. Its list then runs through Sora, Veo, Seedance, Runway, Synthesia, Luma Dream Machine, Leonardo AI, Kling and Pika, each with pros, cons and a best-suited list. It is the only captured page that ranks AI video generators directly. Frameo is not among the vendors this panel tracks.

Hostinger’s guide covers AI writing tools rather than video generators. Its picks are ranked on features, ease of use, pricing and how well the output balances natural-sounding text with SEO. It includes Hostinger’s own AI Writer among them.

The Entrepreneur piece is a contributor article by the co-founder of HOLYWATER. It advises creators not to rely on one tool and names Runway and Marey for video creation. Part of the captured page returned an error, but the article body was readable.

Next Growth Media’s guide is a general list of creator tools. Its video section covers editing apps, CapCut and Descript, and it places Midjourney and Adobe Firefly under image generation.

What this page adds is the count behind each name, the per-model split and the company pattern in the citations. None of the captured pages measures what AI assistants name.

What can these counts not tell you?

The counts measure how often AI answers name a product. They say nothing about video quality, uptime, support, pricing fairness or fit with your workflow. A high share means the models name a product often, and no more than that.

Being named is not the same as being recommended. The Sora warning above is an answer that names a product in order to steer the reader away from it. Each model answered each prompt once, so a single answer can move a vendor’s count. The edition is one dated snapshot, and the category moves fast. Names are matched as strings, so a spelling the panel does not track can be missed, as the capitalised Wan mention shows. The answers were collected through model APIs, which can differ from what the consumer chat apps show. The prompts were in English.

No position on this page is sold, sponsored or influenced. Vendors cannot pay to appear, be reordered or be removed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best AI video generator for content creators?

On AI answer counts, Veo is the name every model gives, in every answer. Runway is the only other product that every model names in at least four of its five answers. Kling and Sora follow. These counts show which tools AI assistants put forward, not which tool produces the best video. Trial the top two on your own content before paying for either.

Which AI model is best for content creation?

For video, the ten models on this panel all name Google’s Veo in every answer, with Runway close behind. This page measures video tools only. Pick by the format you publish most.

Which AI model is better for video generation?

Between the three most-named products, Veo leads on both naming and first placement. Runway is named almost as often, and the models describe it as a workspace with editing tools as well as generation. Kling is named in most answers but rarely comes first, and its naming comes mainly from Claude and Gemini models. Which is better for your work depends on output tests this page does not run.

Which AI tool is used for video generation?

The tools AI answers name most for creators are Veo, Runway, Kling and Sora, followed by HeyGen, Seedance, Synthesia, Luma, Adobe Firefly and Pika. Synthesia is described as a presenter-style tool, and one model groups HeyGen with it as a specialist addition. The captured Next Growth Media guide files Adobe Firefly and Midjourney under image generation.

Is Sora still a safe choice for new projects?

Not without checking. Sora is named in most answers, but one GPT-5.6 Sol answer described it as being discontinued and advised against new projects. That claim comes from a model answer and has not been verified here. Confirm Sora’s current status with OpenAI before building a workflow on it.

Do vendors pay to appear on this list?

No. The ranking follows the measured count of names in recorded AI answers. Vendors cannot pay to appear, be reordered or be removed, and a product that no model named, such as Freepik, is not listed.

How this list is ordered

The order is the measurement, not an assessment of the products. Answer share is the share of recorded answers that named the tool. Named first is the share where it appeared before any other tracked tool. Both are counts from one dated edition and are published in full on the category page.

A tool appears here only if it was named in the edition and its record carries a sourced claim. A product that was never named is not listed, and no position is sold.

Where to check it