Social Rocket
All figures in the text come from the catalogue index, as of 01.09.2026.
Two names, one fingerprint
Hardly any panel fills its catalogue itself. Most buy from an upstream wholesaler and place their own interface, their own name and their own price list on top. From the outside, two panels then look like two separate providers. In the catalogue, they often look like a single source with two labels.
This comparison builds a similarity profile for every entry and measures, for each pair of panels, how much of one catalogue can be found again in the other. How many panels this index compares in total is 26; what matters is not that number itself, but how many pairs within it sit conspicuously close together — and that is exactly what the fingerprint measures. The result is the clearest indication this dataset gives of the structure behind the market.
In the current data, one pair stands out more than all others: PureSMM and SocNet reach a match of 100 %. That is not a footnote. Two catalogues that overlap to this degree very likely sell the same goods under two different names.
How a match comes about
What is measured is not the brand name but the product behind it. For each catalogue entry we build a similarity profile from name features, service class, quantity limits, refill windows, delivery rhythm and target-audience information — and from that, for each panel pair, how much of one catalogue reappears in the other.
Two panels with a high match do not necessarily have to be the same company. A shared upstream supplier is more likely: a wholesaler provides the same service catalogue to a number of resellers, and each reseller places its own interface, its own name and its own price list on top. The end result is two rows in the index that list almost the same goods under two different labels.
This structure is the rule rather than the exception in the social-media-services business. A reseller model does not require its own supply network — only a web interface, a price list and API access to a larger catalogue behind it.
How you can recognise it yourself
If you compare two offers, you can see some of this without any tools. It is conspicuous when two panels list almost identical bracketed additions in the name of the same service class, set the same minimum and maximum quantities, and use the same wording for the refill window. For refills in particular, it is worth checking whether the promise appears only in the title or is also reported technically via the API — there is a separate article on this: Refill is not the same as refill.
What you cannot reliably recognise, by contrast, is the source from a panel's name or its presentation. A distinct brand, logo and tone of voice can be placed over any catalogue you buy — they say nothing about the source behind it.
What this means for price
Where two catalogues overlap heavily, a price difference between them is most likely a margin difference, not a quality difference. Both panels presumably buy from the same wholesaler; one marks it up more than the other. Anyone who simply looks for the cheaper of the two names is in fact choosing between two trading margins on the same goods — not between two products.
That is also the practical lesson: a price comparison that merely sets brand names side by side overlooks exactly this case. A price comparison that reads the catalogues does see it. How wide the spread is even within a single, very large service class can be compared directly, for example, at Instagram Followers.
What the fingerprint flags in the catalogue
The same measurement runs one level deeper in this comparison, namely per row rather than per panel pair. If two entries from different panels within one service class exceed the similarity threshold, we treat them as a group: the cheapest row serves as the reference point, and the more expensive ones carry a note about the presumably shared source, together with the panel and the price gap.
Across the entire catalogue, the number of such groups is 15.021, and the number of flagged, more expensive rows within them is 29.617. Both numbers reflect only markers that are actually displayed — cases with an implausibly large gap are deliberately left unmarked, because a gap of that size is more likely a counting error than a markup.
How large the gap is in the remaining cases is shown by the median: the flagged row costs, at the median, 1,75 times the cheapest row in its group — a trading margin, not a premium for better goods, since by this measurement the goods are the same.
What this does not prove
A high similarity value is an indication, not proof. Two panels can build similar offers independently without sharing a source — and with a product that has as few degrees of freedom as a catalogue entry (quantity, price, a few keywords), unrelated catalogues will inevitably look alike. Probably, not certainly: that is the limit of any similarity measure based on metadata rather than on a disclosed supply relationship.
Still, it is worth looking at the overlap column before buying a brand name. The full table with all panel pairs is available at Best SMM panel; the price and catalogue comparison itself is in the SMM panel comparison, with the same duplicate markers for every individual service class.