Compare SMM panels

An SMM panel is a wholesale counter for social media metrics. What you order there is not a consultation but a catalogue entry: network, service, minimum quantity, maximum quantity, base price per 1.000 units. The panels usually do not run the delivery themselves — they buy in and resell.

Most of the German-language shops that rank for these search terms sit on exactly such catalogues and put their own interface and their own margin on top. That is why we compare the panels rather than the shop facades: a page with three package cards does not reveal which catalogue lies behind it, an API catalogue does. Which panels are in the index and how much their catalogues overlap is shown in the SMM panel comparison.

The index holds 25 panels with a combined 91,037 catalogue entries, spread across 244 service classes. Of these, orderable as of the stated data date 90,999. The catalogues extend well beyond Instagram: TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Telegram, Twitch and a long list of smaller platforms are included.

Panels are aimed at resellers. API access, bulk ordering and tiered pricing are the norm, and whoever pays a German agency is, as a rule, paying a margin on one of these catalogues. That is no accusation, just the structure of the market — and it explains why the same service can cost very different amounts on two sites.

Within the scope of this page sit the catalogues of Cloutsy, FiveBBC, DripFeedPanel, SMMFlare, YTBot, APISeller, Auto SMM Panel, FansSuply, JungleSMM, Marketerum, SMMExclusive, Stream-Promotion, SMM-1, CrazyPanel, JingleSMM, Solid SMM, InstantPanel, PureSMM, FullSMM, MagnetBoosting, MegaVirality, SMMShiba, SMMTalk, SocNet and Viewsta. The data date is set by Cloutsy as the oldest extract; the other panels are more recent, but they are not brought forward, because that would claim a freshness the figure does not have.

Between two extracts the catalogue does not stand still. Since 31/10/2026, 2,725 entries in this scope have a different base price than before, of which 51 up and 2,674 down; 39 rows have been added and 2 have disappeared from the catalogues. The date given is the oldest of these earlier extracts, so that the row does not claim a freshness its slowest component lacks.

The comparison covers only the panels that have a second extract at all; their number is 25 and is not the number of indexed panels, because a newly added house has no history yet. As long as that second extract is missing, nothing is shown here — a zero would mean "nothing has moved", and that is a measurement, not a gap.

The cheapest reliable base price in the index is 0.0005 € per 1.000 units, the median 2.42 €. The gap between the two is the real news: the lowest value almost always comes from a niche, while the median describes what a typical order costs.

A base price per 1.000 units is not a final price. It only becomes one once minimum order, maximum quantity and step size fit. An entry with a very low base price that only starts at a large order is simply not available for a small order — and so it does not appear at the top of our sorting for that quantity.

At the top end the spread is wider than the shops' advertising would suggest. In many classes there is more than an order of magnitude between the cheapest and the mid-range position, and the more expensive entries almost always carry a claim about origin or quality that cannot be checked from the catalogue alone.

We additionally show the dollar price from which the euro figure is derived. Anyone who uses a different rate can recalculate that way instead of having to trust us.

• Zero prices are genuine in the raw catalogue but are not prices: usually placeholder or test entries from the panels. In this evaluation they count 778 rows and are excluded from every minimum, median and "from" figure — not deleted, just not sold as a price.
• The same applies to implausible quantity limits: 1,999 entries state limits that are technical placeholders and not an orderable quantity. They still appear, but are not read as a real order size.

Every offer carries two kinds of statements, and they come from different sources. One sits in the name: bracket tags about refill windows, daily output, start time, origin, quality. The other arrives as a field from the interface: refill, dripfeed, cancel — simply true or false.

The two sources regularly diverge in the catalogues, and the reason is more mundane than it looks: they answer different questions. The title says what the panel promises; the field says what can be triggered when ordering itself. An entry with a refill window in its name and the refill field not set usually does not mean "there is none", but "not at the push of a button" — replacement then runs through the panel's support.

It is not resolved. Filtering and sorting use the field, because only the field says anything about the ordering path; the statement from the title is shown beside it, with a sentence on what the difference means in practice. More important than the gap is its counterpart: the number of offers where the panel itself reports the refill field as set is 9,892, and there replenishment can be triggered without a ticket. That is exactly what you can filter for — we show where refill really runs automatically.

Labels such as "real profiles", "HQ" or "non drop" are self-declarations by the seller. We translate them into comparable categories and note that they remain claims. A catalogue field does not tell you whether a real person stands behind an account.

Purchased reach violates the terms of use of all major networks. The guidelines expressly prohibit artificial interaction, and the consequences range from silent removal of accounts through restricted distribution to suspension of the profile. Whoever orders bears this risk themselves; comparing prices does not change that.

The second, more common harm is less spectacular: reach falls. Accounts with no interest in your content drag down the interaction rate, and because distribution depends on that rate, fewer real people end up seeing your posts. At the same time, any own analytics becomes unusable, because the underlying population is no longer right.

Whether it pays off depends on the goal. For an account that is meant to sell, a high number without demand is worthless. It is understandable to order where a number is itself the product — and even then it remains a bet against the platform. We neither recommend nor discourage it; we make sure the decision is made with accurate figures.

Organic growth, paid platform advertising and purchased metrics are three different routes with three different risks. Ads are more expensive but compliant; organic work is slower but lasting. This comparison replaces neither — it only describes the third market precisely. For the most searched single topic this is covered in detail on the page buy Instagram followers.

Payment is made to the panel, not to us. Payment methods, refunds and support lie entirely with the respective provider, and we have no way to check their quality. Outbound links are marked as partner links; this does not affect the sorting, because sorting happens before any link is built.