TikTok on the panels: stock, prices, limits

TikTok is one of the three most densely populated networks in this comparison: 11,849 orderable entries across 15 performance tiers from 24 catalogues. View counts are the commodity everything else is measured against — per unit they are the cheapest metric in the entire index, which is why a price comparison decides the least about the order here.

What decides instead are the quantity limits. A base price quoted per thousand units tells you little if the line only sells from a five-figure minimum quantity and delivers in fixed steps. These two fields separate the offers on TikTok more sharply than price does, which is why they appear on every line.

The third peculiarity is the live section. Viewers during a broadcast are sold by duration, in steps from minutes to hours, and this grading looks suspiciously identical across most providers. For an ongoing show, any later top-up is also worthless, which makes the usual promises in the offer name meaningless there.

One figure still belongs in the picture, because it comes from the fields rather than the titles: the number of offers on this network where the panel reports a refill through its own interface is 1,843. This refers to the variant that can be triggered by the customer; a refill window in the offer name is a promise, not a field. For followers the question matters most, for live viewers not at all — a broadcast that is over has no place left to refill.

Promised refill: the windows in the stock

The field says who triggers the refill; what is actually promised is stated in the offer name — as a window in days, as an ongoing promise, as an explicit refusal, or not at all. On TikTok the length of the window is the more interesting half, because the platform cleans up in irregular waves and a short window can lapse in between. What is counted here are promises, not measured stock.

Across this network's stock, the number of entries with a window in days is 3,726, the number of promises without an expiry date is 538, the number of explicit refusals is 3,014 — and the number of entries that say nothing about refills is 4,580. Together the four groups fully cover this network's stock; their sum is 11,858. The silent group belongs in every statement about the other three, because without it a catalogue that promises nothing reads like one that promises little.

The number of entries promising at least 30 days is 3,735, and the number promising at least one year is 1,039. Both tiers include the ongoing promises, because a promise without expiry outlasts any window — a breakdown that left them out would count the strongest promises in the catalogue smaller than they are. The tiers therefore cannot be added: the longer one is entirely contained in the shorter one.

The median of windows with a day figure is 30 Tage. Ongoing promises are not counted in it — as a day count they could only be sorted in with an invented number.

The lowest price-eligible base price on this network is 0.0009 € per thousand units, with the middle of the range at 1.63 €. The lower figure is currently held by JingleSMM — that is a property of a single catalogue, not a market situation, and at the next pull it may sit with another provider. Both are wholesale purchase prices, not what a German-speaking sales page charges for it.

Account-level figures hang on Followers — the only lasting number on this network.

Per-video figures hang on views, likes, comments, shares and saves. The last two count forwards and bookmarking actions; they appear in the counter under the video, but say less about reach than their reputation as a recommendation signal would suggest.

Live viewers are the product with a schedule: ordering happens for an ongoing broadcast, and whatever does not arrive during the show never arrives at all.

Which providers stand behind these lines is set out in the panel comparison; whether buying is worth it at all is covered on buy followers.

Between two pulls the catalogue does not stand still. Since 31/10/2026, 408 entries in this scope have a different base price than before, of which 34 went up and 374 went down; 39 lines have been added and 2 have disappeared from the catalogues. The date given is that of the oldest of these earlier pulls, so the line does not claim a freshness its slowest component does not have.

Comparison is only made across the panels that have a second pull at all; their number is 24 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 providers' own statements: 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 hide the providers that nobody has looked at for a long time. The number of providers with no check at all is currently 0.

Many of these lines resemble each other right down to the quantity limits, and there is a reason: panels buy from the same upstream suppliers. Where entries from different providers within a tier exceed our similarity threshold, we list 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 can only be a counting error, the note is omitted. The number of groups touching this section is 1,945, and the number of marked lines is 3,163.

"Likely" carries this sentence. No panel writes into its interface whom it buys from; we see two lines that match each other, which is a hint and not proof. The groups also do not partition the stock — what is counted is what touches this section. The measurement is described in detail in the panel comparison.