Corrections and Fact-Check Requests

We aim to be accurate, and we correct mistakes openly. Anyone can ask us to check a fact: buyers, users and the vendors we cover. Requests are free, and paying us cannot speed up or change one.

• Review within 5 business days. Every request gets a reference number and a review deadline when you send it. Within 5 business days (Monday to Friday) we check the fact against its source and the evidence you sent.
• Evidence decides. A fact changes when public evidence supports the new value: a pricing page, documentation, a help-center article, a trust center or a certificate. We do not change facts on the strength of a private email, a sales deck or a phone call.
• One fix, everywhere. Each fact is stored once. When we correct it, every page and score that uses it updates, and each affected page records the change in its change log.
• Scores follow facts. A score changes only when a fact it uses changes, by the published methodology. We never adjust a score by hand.
• Neutral wording. If you think our wording about a product is unfair, tell us. We describe products in factual, neutral terms and fix wording that falls short of our editorial policy.
• Independence. A commercial relationship with us, or the lack of one, has no effect on how a request is handled.

1. Received: you see a reference number and the review deadline. Our team is alerted at once.
2. In review: we recheck the fact against its source and your evidence.
3. Outcome: one of three results. Corrected: the fact is updated across the site and logged. No change: the source still supports the published value. Declined: the request has no public evidence we can verify. If you left an email address and we need more information, we write from corrections@leadchangegroup.com.

• Any factual error: prices, plans, features, integrations, certifications, company details, and any score or ranking that used a wrong fact.
• Out-of-date facts: a vendor changed its pricing or packaging, earned a certification or retired a product.
• Wording: statements that are inaccurate, unfair or not supported by a source.

Routine updates, such as a vendor changing its price, appear in page change logs. Material errors in what we published are also listed in the correction log below.

You do not need a relationship with us to request a correction, and having one changes nothing. To help us act within 5 business days:

• Point to the exact page and fact, and to the public page that shows the correct value.
• If information is not public yet, such as a price change next month, send it once it is published. We only state what a buyer can verify.
• We do not show vendors pages or scores before publication, and we do not remove accurate, sourced facts on request.

Use the form below. Include the page address, what is wrong and, if you have one, a public link that supports the correct value. You can also write to corrections@leadchangegroup.com with the same details.

Material errors we published and corrected, newest first: when, how we found the error (a reader's or a vendor's request, our independent review of published pages, an audit or our own checks), what was wrong, what the page says now and the pages it affected.

• Nov 11, 2026, found by our own checks. What was wrong: The Hiring Cost Atlas said 7 cities had announced a higher 2027 minimum wage. The count included every city with a 2027 rate, among them New York City, whose 2027 rate ($17.00) is the same as its 2026 rate. Now: The count includes only cities whose 2027 rate is above their 2026 rate: 6 (Seattle, Denver, San Jose, San Diego, Minneapolis and Saint Paul). Pages: Hiring Cost Atlas.
• Nov 11, 2026, found by our own checks. What was wrong: California's employer cost page still said the final 2026 FUTA credit reduction «is set on November 10, 2026» after that day, next to the U.S. Department of Labor's potential 1.5% figure. Now: The page says the Department had not published its final 2026 reduction by November 11, 2026; the potential 1.5% is used until it does. Pages: Employee cost calculator: California.
• Oct 31, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: RUN Powered by ADP's pages presented its 3-months-free offer as current after its stated deadline (“start processing payroll by October 22, 2026”) had passed. Now: The pages give the deadline in ADP's current terms, re-checked on October 31, 2026 (November 26, 2026). Our checks now refuse a page that shows an offer past its own deadline. Pages: RUN Powered by ADP, RUN Powered by ADP pricing.
• Oct 31, 2026, found by our own checks. What was wrong: Workforce.com's pages said it offers a free trial, from its UK site; its US site shows no free trial, only a payroll promotion behind a demo request. Now: The free-trial statement is removed; the company facts are read from the US site. Pages: Workforce.com, Workforce.com pricing.
• Oct 31, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Paychex Flex's specifications listed “Countries supported: US, Germany, Denmark”, which are the countries Paychex as a company operates in, not where Paychex Flex runs payroll. Now: The value is removed: Paychex does not state which countries Paychex Flex supports. Pages: Paychex Flex.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Payroll pages compared Patriot Payroll's Basic plan and SurePayroll's No Tax Filing plan, which leave filing and depositing payroll taxes to the employer, with full-service payroll. Five alternatives pages named Patriot Payroll's Basic plan ($117 a month for 25 employees) as the lowest list price. Now: Rankings and comparisons price each payroll product at its cheapest plan that files the taxes. Plans where you file the taxes yourself are listed apart, under “You file the taxes yourself”. Pages: Best payroll software, Gusto alternatives.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Time-tracking pages priced Timeero's Basic plan, which Timeero sells for up to 10 users, for teams of 25, and counted busybusy's $40 admin license and its first user separately. Timeero's score in time and attendance software went from 7.8 to 7.5 once its cost at 25 employees uses its Pro plan. Now: A plan's user limit and seat minimum come from its own billing line, and a base fee that includes the first user is counted once. Pages: Timeero review, busybusy pricing.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by an audit of the site. What was wrong: The Hiring Cost Atlas showed the City of Los Angeles paid sick leave rule (48 hours a year) as a Louisiana law, which Louisiana does not have, and cited the 1% new-employer unemployment rate of Louisiana, Utah and Wyoming to Washington State's agency. Now: Louisiana shows no state paid sick leave requirement, with the state law that bars local ones; its cost per hour worked is $29.42, not $30.11, on a $50,000 salary. The 1% rate cites federal law (26 U.S.C. § 3303). The open data counts 17 jurisdictions with a verified statewide sick leave law, not 18. Pages: Employee cost calculator: Louisiana, Employee cost calculator: Utah, Employee cost calculator: Wyoming, Hiring Cost Atlas: open data, Employee cost calculator.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Some pages read a vendor's security statement that names no report type or certificate («SOCII», «SOC 2 compliant», «operates with ISO 27001 standards») as a held SOC 2 Type II report or ISO 27001 certificate (Blink, LearnUpon, Recruitee, HackerRank). Now: They read «SOC 2 (type not stated)» and count as unknown in the score: Blink is no longer scored among internal communications tools (7.0 before). Pages: Best internal communications software, Recruitee review.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Comparison tables said «Not disclosed» for vendors that publish prices for another plan or category (for example Rippling and Paychex Flex); price bands called annual-billing rates prices «before discounts» and priced plans at sizes they are not sold (iSpring under 100 users, one-seat sourcing plans for teams). Now: Those cells read «See plans»; annual rates say «billed annually»; bands and the «Best value» pick use only plans sold at each size. Scores: 360Learning 9.0 → 8.8, iSpring LMS 7.4 → 7.8 (corporate LMS). Pages: Best HRIS software, Best corporate LMS.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Product change logs described corrections of our own reading as vendor price changes (for example «Ashby lowered its starting base fee from $400 to $300 a month»). Now: Change logs say what the page now shows and what it showed before, without saying the vendor changed its price. Pages: Ashby review, Atlas HXM review.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: ADP's company-wide privacy program (Binding Corporate Rules) was credited to ADP Workforce Now only, so comparisons marked ADP RUN «unverified» on it. Now: Both ADP products carry it. ADP RUN's score: payroll software 3.8 → 5.1, HRIS 3.2 → 4.3, payroll services 3.2 → 4.4. Pages: ADP RUN vs ADP Workforce Now.
• Oct 30, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Category pages stated legal and tax rules (nonprofit payroll taxes, grant records, volunteers, tip reporting, the HHS-OIG exclusion list) without listing the official sources behind them; two clauses had no source we could verify (E-Verify «voluntary for most employers» on the Form I-9 term, a labor-law claim about monitoring messages). Now: Each page lists the agency source behind its legal sentences in «Sources»; the two clauses were removed. Pages: Payroll software for nonprofits, Form I-9.
• Oct 28, 2026, found by an audit of the site. What was wrong: Our About, Editorial policy and Methodology pages said that a person reviews a random 5% of finished pages each week. A weekly sample was drawn, but no person had reviewed any page. Pages whose independent review asked for changes also said the changes “are being made” when no correction was scheduled. Now: These pages say what is true: the independent review is automated and no page is reviewed by a person yet. A page whose review asked for changes says so, and when we correct it, the date of the correction. Pages: About LeadChange Group, Editorial policy, Methodology.
• Oct 28, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Security statements contradicted the vendors’ facts or had none behind them: four comparisons and Dayforce’s own page said Dayforce names no security certification, though its information security page states ISO and SOC 2 Type II; the Absorb LMS and Resourcing Edge pages said the vendor names no ISO 27001 certificate or SOC 2 report, with no record of that; SeekOut’s page named an encryption standard with no recorded source; product pages said a vendor “holds a current” SOC 2 Type II report where its page states a completed audit. Now: Dayforce is shown with its SOC 2 Type II and ISO attestations, the unsupported statements are removed, and a page may say a vendor lacks a certification only when a recorded fact says so. Pages: Dayforce vs ADP Workforce Now, Dayforce vs Paycor, Dayforce vs UKG Pro, Workday HCM vs Dayforce, Dayforce review, Absorb LMS review, Resourcing Edge review, SeekOut review.
• Oct 28, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Prices sold for a company-size band were used at other sizes (Workable’s 1–20 employee prices at 25 and 50 employees, Ashby’s 1–10 employee price at 25), and the payroll cost table priced Justworks with its PEO plan instead of its Payroll plan. Now: A band price is used only inside its band, and a vendor priced by band costs its plan for that size. Scores whose value used those prices moved: Workable 9.4 → 9.5 and Ashby 8.1 → 7.7 in applicant tracking systems; BambooHR 9.1 → 9.2 and Namely 8.4 → 8.6 in HRIS software; BambooHR 5.8 → 6.0 in onboarding software. Pages: HRIS software compared, HRIS software pricing, Payroll software pricing, JazzHR pricing.
• Oct 28, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Comparison cards and cheapest-alternative lines used prices from another category (Deel’s HR or US PEO price among employer-of-record services, Remote’s payroll price against Multiplier’s EOR fee); a product tied for the lowest price was named as the only one; JazzHR’s Pro features were labelled add-ons; Multiplier’s page said it is not for buyers who want low EOR pricing, though its published EOR price is below Deel’s and Remote’s. Now: Both products are priced in the page’s category when both publish a price there; a tie names no single product; JazzHR Pro lists offers, eSignatures and advanced visual reporting as included; Multiplier’s page describes the add-ons and implementation fee that can come on top of its plan price. Pages: Deel vs Multiplier, Velocity Global alternatives, Achievers alternatives, JazzHR pricing, Multiplier review.
• Oct 26, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Price comparison tables showed “Quote only” for vendors that publish prices on another basis (for example BambooHR, Paychex Flex and Rippling), and cost tables priced plans at company sizes their vendor does not sell them to (Paychex Flex Essentials at 20 or more employees, Gusto's Solo plan for teams, Justworks PEO Basic for one employee). Now: A vendor that publishes prices reads “See plans”; a plan outside the sizes it is sold to reads “Not offered” and is left out of the cheapest-price answers. Pages: HRIS software compared, HRIS software pricing, Payroll software pricing, Gusto pricing.
• Oct 26, 2026, found by our independent review. What was wrong: Comparison pages called a vendor's HIPAA statement “HIPAA (BAA)”, implying a business associate agreement the vendor does not state, and some pricing calls to action said a vendor “quotes its prices” while it publishes them (for example Leapsome). Now: The comparison says “HIPAA”, and a vendor is said to quote only when it publishes no prices. Pages: HiBob vs Rippling, Leapsome review.
• Oct 26, 2026, found by an audit of the site. What was wrong: Seven category rankings gave a “Best for small businesses” or “Best for enterprises” label to a product whose own “Best for” line named another company size (for example “Best for enterprises: Amplify HR” on the PEO ranking, while Amplify HR is aimed at small and mid-sized businesses). Now: A size label goes only to a product whose own “Best for” line names that size. Pages: Best PEO services.