Should a SaaS Publish a Best-Of List That Ranks Itself First?

Is it okay for a SaaS to rank itself first in its own best-of list?

It can be, if you are honest about it. A self-ranked list works when you disclose that you make one of the products, explain who should pick each option, and admit where competitors are better. It fails when it pretends to be neutral. Buyers, and the systems that summarize pages for them, notice the difference.

Every B2B SaaS marketer has seen these pages. "The 9 best tools for X" on a vendor's own blog, with the vendor at number one. Some of them rank well and bring in steady signups. Others read like an ad wearing a lab coat, and buyers bounce in seconds.

I get asked about this format often, usually by founders who see a competitor ranking with one and want to know if they should copy it. My answer is yes, sometimes, but not the way most companies do it. Here is how I think about it.

What is a self-ranked best-of list?

A self-ranked best-of list is a roundup article published by a software company that compares several products in its own category, including its own, usually placing itself first. It targets searches like "best CRM for agencies" or "top lead routing tools," where buyers are comparing options and are close to a decision.

The appeal is easy to see. These queries carry strong buying intent. A buyer typing "best" plus a category is often building a shortlist. If your page shows up, you get a chance to frame the comparison and land on that shortlist yourself.

The risk is also easy to see. The reader knows you have a stake in the answer. If the page hides that, or treats every competitor as a weaker version of you, it loses trust. And trust is the whole currency of a comparison page.

This is different from a one-to-one comparison page, where you set your product against a single named competitor. I wrote about writing a comparison page without trashing the competitor, and most of the same rules apply here, just across more products at once.

Why do so many SaaS companies publish these lists?

Because "best" searches sit close to the buying decision, and third-party roundups often rank competitors you cannot control. Publishing your own list gives you a seat in that conversation. For a small SaaS without many review-site mentions, it can be one of the few ways to appear when buyers compare options.

There is also an AI search angle. When a buyer asks an assistant for the best tools in a category, the answer is built from pages that discuss the category with clear entities and clear reasoning. A well-written roundup is exactly that kind of page. A thin one with no reasoning gives the system little worth repeating.

I covered how AI search decides which brands to list in more detail. The short version is that being mentioned across many trustworthy pages matters more than any single page you write about yourself. Your own list helps, but it is one voice, and an obviously biased one.

So the honest motive is not "rank our page." It is "make sure the comparison a buyer reads is accurate about us and fair about others." That framing changes how you write the whole thing.

What does Google say about ranked lists?

Google's guidance on writing high-quality reviews says that when you call something the best overall or best for a purpose, you should explain why with first-hand supporting evidence. It also says ranked lists should have enough useful content to stand on their own. A list of logos with one line each does not meet that bar.

The same Google page lists other practices that map neatly onto a SaaS roundup. Evaluate from the user's perspective. Explain what sets each option apart. Cover comparable options and say which suits which situation. Discuss benefits and drawbacks based on your own research. Focus on the factors that matter most for the decision.

None of that forbids a vendor from writing a roundup. But it raises the cost of a lazy one. If you claim to be the best, you need to show your reasoning, with evidence, and you need to give real space to the alternatives. That is a lot more work than a listicle template.

I treat Google's review guidance as a quality checklist rather than a ranking formula. It describes what a useful comparison looks like to a reader, which is the standard that matters most.

When should a SaaS publish a self-ranked list?

Publish one when you can name a real buyer situation where you are the best choice, and other situations where you are not. If your honest answer is that your product is best for everyone, you are not ready. The most credible lists win a specific segment and openly send other readers elsewhere.

Here is my test. Can you write one sentence for each competitor that starts with "pick this if," and mean it? For example, "pick this if you need deep enterprise permissions and have an admin to run it." If you can write those sentences honestly, your list will help readers. If you cannot, you do not know the category well enough yet.

The segment matters most. "Best lead routing tool" is too broad for a small vendor to win honestly. "Best lead routing tool for a HubSpot team with under ten reps" is a page you can write with real authority, because you know that buyer and you can say why the bigger tools are overkill for them.

This also suits seed-stage companies that compete against a category leader. I wrote about a seed-stage SaaS comparison page against a category leader, and the logic is similar. You do not beat the leader everywhere. You win a narrow, well-defined slice and say so plainly.

How should you disclose that you are on the list?

Say it in the first lines of the article, in plain words, before the list starts. Hiding the disclosure in a footer or an author box feels like a trick, and readers who notice it late will distrust everything else.

A line such as "This company makes one of the tools below, and this is how the others were chosen" works, written in your own brand voice. Then explain your method. What did you compare? Which factors mattered most and why? Did you use each product, or rely on public documentation and demos? Be specific about what you actually tested and what you did not. A short method section does more for credibility than any badge or star rating.

Avoid fake neutrality devices. Star ratings you invented, scores out of ten with no explanation, and "editor's choice" labels on your own product all signal the opposite of what you want. If you score things, explain the scoring in the same paragraph.

Keep competitor facts current and fair. Pricing, plans, and features change often. If you cannot keep a competitor's details accurate, describe their approach in general terms and link to their pricing page instead of quoting numbers that will go stale and make you look careless or dishonest.

What makes a self-ranked list actually useful?

A useful list helps the reader choose, even if they choose someone else. It defines who each tool is for, compares them on the factors that matter for that buyer, admits real weaknesses, and links out to the other vendors. If a reader leaves with a better shortlist, the page did its job and earned their trust.

Structure matters for both humans and machines. Give each product its own section with a clear heading. Open each section with a two- or three-sentence summary of who it suits. Follow with strengths, weaknesses, and pricing approach. Keep the same order for every product so readers can scan and compare.

Write your own section with the same discipline. List your weaknesses as plainly as you list a competitor's. If your product lacks a feature that a big segment needs, say so and point those readers to the tool that has it. That single honest paragraph does more to sell you than five paragraphs of praise.

Finally, link to the competitors' sites. Google's guidance mentions giving readers options by linking to multiple sellers. For a SaaS roundup, linking to each vendor's site is the equivalent. It costs you nothing a confident company should fear, and it shows the reader you are not trying to trap them.

When should you not publish one?

Do not publish one if you cannot keep it accurate, if you would not let a competitor's customer read it, or if your product is too new to have clear strengths. In those cases, a focused guide on how to choose a tool in your category is safer and often ranks for the same searches.

A "how to choose" guide is my default alternative. It explains the decision factors, the tradeoffs, and the questions a buyer should ask on demos. It can mention your product where it fits without pretending to rank the whole market. Buyers find it useful, and nobody feels tricked.

I would also skip the format if your sales team relies on partnerships with the vendors you would be ranking. A roundup that puts a partner below you creates friction you do not need. Know your relationships before you publish.

And if the main goal is to manipulate a search result rather than help a buyer, skip it. That intent shows in the writing, and it tends to produce exactly the thin, biased page that neither buyers nor search systems want to reward.

What should you do next?

Pick one narrow buyer segment where you are honestly the best fit. Write a short method, disclose your stake up front, give every competitor a fair "pick this if" sentence, and admit your own gaps. If you cannot do that yet, write a how-to-choose guide instead and revisit the list later.

Then measure it like any bottom-of-funnel page. Watch which readers click to your trial or demo, and which click out to competitors. If many readers leave for a competitor, that is useful information about your positioning, not a failure of the page.

I build websites and the automations behind them for lead generation, and comparison content is often the page closest to a sale. Getting it honest is not just ethics. It is conversion strategy, because buyers who trust your comparison are far more likely to trust your demo.

If you are planning comparison or best-of content and want a second opinion on the angle, the structure, or how to track what it actually brings in, reach out. Let's chat about what your comparison pages should say.