SMM Panel Comparison: Catalogues Side by Side, One Data Snapshot

Which panels are in the index

The index contains 25 panels with a combined 91,037 catalogue entries across 244 service classes. A panel is included when it delivers a complete catalogue through its own interface — not because it has an affiliate programme. Without a machine-readable catalogue there is nothing to compare, and a copied sales page is no substitute.

In practice this means two dialects: the widespread standard supplies, per entry, a name, category, base price, quantity limits and fields for refill, dripfeed and cancellation. The second dialect deviates — different field names, price per single unit instead of per thousand, a machine-readable network field and a status field that marks unorderable entries. Both are brought into the same form at the point of intake.

A panel drops out again when its catalogue can no longer be retrieved or shrinks implausibly. Half a catalogue is worse than none: it makes offers disappear unnoticed and quietly shifts every price statement upwards.

The panels themselves sell to resellers. API access, bulk ordering and a credit account are standard, and the German-language shops ranking for these search terms are, to a large extent, sitting on exactly such catalogues. Anyone comparing here is therefore looking one trade level deeper than on a provider list.

Coverage goes far beyond Instagram: the 244 service classes extend across TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Telegram, Twitch and LinkedIn into niches for which there are no German-language shops.

The index contains 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 snapshot is set by Cloutsy as the oldest extract. The individual extract times per panel are listed at the data basis above this section.

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 upwards and 2,674 downwards; 39 rows have been added and 2 have disappeared from the catalogues. The stated time is the oldest of these earlier extracts, so that the line does not claim a freshness its slowest component lacks.

Comparison is only made across 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 provider has no history yet. As long as this second extract is missing, nothing appears here — a zero would mean “nothing has moved”, which is a measurement and not a gap.

Finding the right offer in four steps

The order of the steps is not a matter of taste: quantity before price, otherwise you would compare base prices that do not apply to your order at all.

1. 1

   Set network and service

   First choose the service class — for example Instagram and followers. Everything else depends on this, because prices and quantity limits are not comparable between classes.

2. 2

   Enter the quantity, don't estimate it

   Enter the quantity you actually want. It determines which entries are orderable at all, and often shifts the ranking considerably compared with the pure base-price list.

3. 3

   Filter promises, don't read titles

   If refill or a target country matters to you, filter for it. The filter works on the technical fields, i.e. on what can be triggered during ordering itself; the statement from the title stands alongside, together with a note on what the difference means for the order.

4. 4

   Check before you click

   Check base price, quantity limits, increment and data snapshot on the offer. Ordering happens with the panel — under its payment methods, its terms and its support.

What is compared — and what is usually compared

When two panels sell the same goods

Panels are rarely the source of what they sell. They buy from the same upstream suppliers, and this is visible in the catalogues: identical cuts, identical quantity limits, identical wording in the bracket tags, merely with a different markup in front.

For this reason the comparison forms a similarity profile for each entry and measures how much of one catalogue reappears in another panel's catalogue. The values per panel pair are shown in the comparison above this text; here is how to read them.

A high overlap means: whoever is cheaper here most likely sells the same goods with a smaller margin — not better goods. With low overlap it is more plausible that genuinely different sources lie behind them, and then a price difference says less than it appears to.

The measurement remains a similarity measurement. It does not prove a common source; it shows where one is likely. Two identically worded entries with different target audiences are explicitly not regarded as the same goods.

The same measurement runs one level deeper, namely per row. If entries from different panels within one service class exceed the similarity threshold, we treat them as a group: the cheapest row is the reference point, the more expensive ones carry the note that they probably sell the same source, together with panel and price gap. Not all of them: where the price gap is so large that it cannot be a surcharge but must be a counting error, the note is omitted. The number of groups touching this section is 13,537; the number of marked, more expensive rows within it is 26,578. Both figures apply to the whole catalogue and not to the rows of the table above, and they only count markings that are actually displayed — the withheld cases appear in neither figure.

The word “probably” is what matters, and it is not there out of caution. No panel writes into its interface who it buys from; we see two rows that resemble each other right down to the quantity limits, and that is a hint, not proof. Two providers may have chosen the same cut independently. A wording that turned the hint into a finding would be wrong for every single pair judged this way — the hedged one holds up.

Two misreadings are obvious, so they are stated explicitly here: the groups do not partition the catalogue. What touches this section is counted, and the same group can appear again in another section, because its rows belong to different placements. And a marked row is not worse than the cheap one: it is more expensive, and the marking says no more than that. Whether delivery, support or payment method are worth the surcharge is not something this comparison measures.

How large the gap is, the median shows: the marked row costs, at the median, 1.92 times the cheapest row of its group. A median and not an average — at the upper end are pairs whose gap is not a surcharge but a counting error: an entry for a bundle and one for a single piece carry almost the same name and mean different quantities. The largest gaps of this kind we do not display at all; as long as the bundle size is not read from the name, the rest remain in the measurement, which is why the middle of the field is given here and not a sum.

What the price really tells you

Across all classes, the reliable base price in the index starts at 0.0005 € per 1.000 units, with the middle of the field at 2.42 €. The gap is not a curiosity but the structure of this market: at the very bottom lie bulk goods and special cases, in the middle what an ordinary order costs.

“The cheapest panel” does not exist, because no panel is cheap in all classes. The same provider can lead on Instagram followers and trail on YouTube views, and both are true at once. It only becomes meaningfully comparable once class and quantity are fixed — which is why there is a calculator above and no ranking here.

A low base price is also only a low final price if your quantity suits the entry. Many of the cheapest rows assume large minimum orders; they are not available for small orders and are accordingly not listed as their cheapest offer.

Because the catalogues quote in dollars, every euro figure results from a conversion at 0.8951 euros per dollar, as of 30/10/2026. The dollar value remains on the offer; anyone calculating with a different rate need not rely on ours.

• Zero prices are genuine catalogue values, but not prices — as a rule placeholder or test entries from the panels. 778 rows fall into this category and are left out of minimum, median and every “from” statement. Without this rule several of the largest classes would lead with a zero amount.
• 1,999 entries state quantity limits that are technical placeholders. They are not read as an orderable size and move to the end in price sorts rather than being deleted.

Offer text vs. API field

Every catalogue entry delivers two kinds of statement from the same interface. The name lists what the panel promises: refill window, daily output, start time, origin, quality tier, often in brackets and with symbols. The fields alongside state plainly whether refill, dripfeed and cancellation can be triggered within the ordering process itself.

The most common case is a refill window in the name with the refill field not set. In practice this rarely means “does not exist”, but rather “not at the press of a button”: the replenishment then runs through the panel's support, with all the waiting and chasing that entails.

This is not resolved. Filtering and sorting follow the field — only it says something about the ordering route — while the statement from the title is displayed additionally. Anyone needing replenishment without a ticket filters on the field: the number of offers their panel itself reports as refillable is 9,892 in the index. Anyone accepting a support route has, with the title, a second, weaker promise in hand.

Not every deviation weighs the same, and the distinction does not lie in the care taken by the panel. Refill, dripfeed and cancellation concern what you can trigger yourself — that decides during ordering. A deviating quantity statement between name and field changes nothing here and therefore appears one level quieter. Equally quiet is the case in which a title carries its target country both as a word and as a flag and the two point to different countries: the interface says nothing about the target country, the flag is weighted, the word stands alongside.

Quality tiers such as “real”, “HQ” or “Non Drop” remain self-declarations by the seller. We translate them into comparable categories so that they can be read side by side, and note that they are unverified. Whether a delivered account has a person behind it appears in no catalogue.

Speed statements, by contrast, are structured and therefore reliably evaluable: start time and daily output explain why the same quantity is delivered over hours at one panel and over days at the next.

Refill, drop and guarantees

Delivered accounts disappear again when the platforms clean up. This attrition is called drop in the catalogues, and refill is the answer to it: the promise to deliver again once within a time limit.

The time limits are open-ended and range from a few days to “lifetime”. We store them as what they are — a number of days, a permanent promise, an explicit no or no statement at all. These four cases are four different things and are not folded into a yes-no field.

A refill statement is only self-triggerable once the technical field also carries it. If it appears only in the name, it remains a promise by the panel — just one you have to request from support instead of retrieving within the ordering process. We therefore show both and highlight where refill runs via the API.

Refill is in any case not a guarantee in the legal sense. What happens if the panel does not replenish is governed by its own terms — and how reliable those are this comparison cannot measure.

What the catalogues promise on durability

The time windows are not a marginal feature but the only statement in the whole catalogue that says anything about durability before an order. We read them from every title in the index: as a window in days, as a permanent promise, as an explicit no or as silence. What comes of this is a count of promises — what actually remains could only be shown by a test order, and there are none here.

That is why the number of silent entries always stands alongside. Across the index the number of entries with a window in days is 23,835, the number of promises without an expiry date is 6,724, the number of explicit refusals is 15,022 — and the number of entries that say nothing about refill is 45,456. Together the four groups cover the stock of this page completely; their sum is 91,037. The groups do not overlap and omit nothing. The silent group is not the remainder but regularly the largest, and without it each of the other three figures would be a share of an unnamed quantity.

The scale is cumulative. The number of entries promising at least 30 days is 28,954, and the number of those with at least one year is 9,220. In both tiers the permanent promises are included, because a promise without expiry outlasts every time limit — a scale that left them out would calculate the strongest promises in the catalogue smaller than they are. The tiers therefore cannot be added: the longer one lies entirely within the shorter.

Between the panels these promises lie far apart, and they are the second distinguishing feature alongside price: a provider that consistently promises time limits sells different goods from one whose catalogue is silent on this, even if both lead the same class. What the promise is worth during ordering is decided additionally by the refill field — the number of offers in the index where the panel reports replenishment via its own interface is 9,892, and only there does it run without a ticket.

How long the time-limited promises typically are, their middle shows: the median of the windows with a day figure is 30 Tage. Permanent promises are excluded from this calculation, and necessarily so — a median over a set in which “unlimited” is sorted in would have to decide how many days “forever” counts as, and any answer would be an invented number in a statistic. They therefore stand alongside as a separate figure.

Country targeting

Almost every panel in this search result advertises a Germany connection, and almost always this means two different things at once. An offer can explicitly name Germany as its target country, or it can state a region in which Germany is included. 1,154 entries in the index name Germany itself.

The number of those who reach Germany through a regional statement is larger. Because that is a different claim, it sits with us behind a different filter and not in the same figure — anyone expecting German-speaking accounts should not accidentally receive a Europe label.

A “Worldwide” statement does not count as a country promise. It describes a lack of restriction, not the presence of German accounts.

A panel's own Germany connection — German-speaking support, prices in euros, invoicing — is independent of this and appears in no catalogue field. We therefore do not evaluate it.

Risks and limits

All major networks prohibit purchased interaction in their terms of use. Enforcement happens through the product — removal of accounts, throttled reach, a ban in repeat cases — not through courts. Ordering is not criminal in Germany, but it is contrary to contract, and the risk lies with the account holder.

Economically, the most common damage is not the ban but the decline in reach. Accounts without interest depress the interaction rate, and because distribution depends on that, the next posts reach fewer real people. Whether an order pays off depends on whether the number itself is the product — for anything meant to generate demand, it is not.

Rule-compliant alternatives are the platforms' advertising: more expensive per account reached, but without a rule violation and with reliable audience data. Organic work is slower and cannot be ordered, but it lasts. This comparison replaces neither; it describes the third route precisely enough to hold it soberly against the other two.

Payment goes through the panel. Payment routes, credit models, reversals and support lie there, and we have no means of checking their quality — there are so far no test orders here. No serious panel asks for your profile login details.

Outgoing links are partner links where a partner programme exists, and ordinary links where none exists. The sorting happens before link generation and does not know the difference.

Frequently asked questions