Pinterest at the panels: one product, two names

Pinterest is one of the thinly populated sections of this comparison: 178 orderable entries in 6 performance classes from 15 catalogues. The reason lies in the platform itself — it works more like an image search engine than a stage for metrics, and accordingly few counters are publicly visible alongside it.

The most important peculiarity is a naming problem: Save and Repin refer to the same thing. The catalogues use both words side by side, sometimes within the same provider, and anyone searching for only one of them misses half the stock. We list both as one class.

Because the classes are small, their price ranges rest on a few providers. A single new or vanished line shifts things here more than an entire catalogue would elsewhere, which is why the date beneath the figures is part of the information.

One figure still belongs to the picture, because it comes from the fields rather than the titles: the number of offers in this network where the panel reports a refill through its own interface is 18. This refers to the variant that can be triggered yourself; what appears in an offer name is a promise, not a field. For saves on a pin that keeps running for months, this is practically the most important property after price.

The lowest price-eligible base price in this network is 0.43 € per thousand units, while the middle of the range sits at 12.89 €. The lower value is currently provided by Solid SMM — this is a property of a single catalogue and not a market situation, and at the next pull it may depend on a different provider. Both are wholesale purchase prices, not what a German-language sales page charges for them.

Account-level questions hang on Followers.

Questions about individual pins hang on Saves — also called Repins and the same product —, Likes and Comments. The save is the signal that actually moves something on this platform, because it carries the pin onto other people's boards.

Which providers stand behind these lines is shown in the panel comparison.

Between two pulls the catalogue does not stand still. Since 31/10/2026, 2 entries in this scope have a different base price than before, of which 0 went up and 2 went down; 0 lines have been newly added and 0 have disappeared from the catalogues. The stated time is the oldest of these earlier pulls, so the line does not claim a freshness that its slowest component does not have.

Comparison is only made across the panels that have a second pull at all; their number is 15 and is not the number of indexed panels, because a newly added provider has no history yet. As long as this second pull is missing, nothing is shown here — a zero would mean "nothing has moved", and that is a measurement, not a gap.

Two details appear in no panel interface and are therefore maintained by hand from the panels' own information: whether a provider issues a proper invoice and which payment methods it accepts. The number of providers with an invoice in this scope is 2. Since 30/08/2026, none of these details has gone unchecked here — the oldest check is shown rather than the most recent, because a date based on the last check would conceal the providers nobody has looked at for longer. The number of providers with no check at all is currently 0.

Where entries from different providers within a class match each other down to the quantity limits, we record them as a group and mark the more expensive lines with a note that they likely sell the same source — not all of them, because where the price gap could only be a counting error, the note is omitted. The number of groups touching this section is 20, the number of marked lines is 39. The word "likely" matters: no panel writes into its interface who it buys from, and two identically cut lines are an indication, not proof. Also counted is what touches this section — the groups do not divide up the stock. How this is measured is described in the panel comparison.