How AnyEventTool builds its rankings: methodology, weights, sources and the results where AET loses

The rankings and this methodology are published by AnyEventTool (AET); the author is founder Oleksandr Rykovtsev. AET ranks itself and earns money from Pro ($19/month), so we are an interested party.

Why we publish anyway: every fact about another product comes from that vendor's own page, with URL and check date; all data is in open CSVs; the results where AET loses are printed below; five AI reviewers critiqued the method until each scored the fee and Ukraine methods 9/10 and the design method 9 with conditions.

What we did not do: we did not create accounts with competitors or test their products hands-on. AET's cells come from its code and public pages and are labelled "self-assessed". AET is young: no G2, Capterra or Trustpilot reviews yet, and support is email only.

Our topic rule: we write a ranking when AET is #1 in the main count on stated criteria, and we publish every sensitivity check, including the ones AET loses (design: RegToEVENT is #1 in 3 of 10 views). That is selection bias: you see AET-#1 rankings because we chose topics where AET wins. The counterweight is the broader views, computed with the same engine:

Scored but not published: replacing Google Forms + payment links + spreadsheets (Ticket Tailor 85.9, AET 85.5); merch with tickets (Ticket Tailor 89.8, Hi.Events 89.1, AET 84.6); secret-location events (Luma 82.2, AET 75.4); applications with approval (Eventmate 92.3, AET 81.6); subscribable calendars (Luma 77.8, AET 57.9); built-in engagement — AET 92.4 vs Eventmate 91.8, but a 1-point shift in one weight hands #1 to Eventmate.

In feature coverage "?" counted as 0, which favors AET; on confirmed cells only, the gap widens: Luma 89, Eventbrite 86, AET 63. We never claim AET has "the most features" or is "the best overall".

These were not published as rankings because we don't write rankings whose answer is another product; the numbers appear here instead. Need reminders, a waitlist, promo codes or a built-in audience? Look at Luma, Ticket Tailor, Eventmate or RegToEVENT.

The five reviewers are AI agents, each playing a reader group: Ukrainian organizers (UA), communities and indie organizers (CO), software-review sites like G2 and Capterra (RV), industry surveys (SV), niche organizers — workshops, retreats, quiz hosts, nonprofits (NI). This is not independent expert review, so the data is open. Each first collected 10 pains with sources (50 pains, 137 URLs), then scored every concept version; approval needed 9+ from all five.

Also dropped: "paid communities" (AET has no memberships) and "AI for creating events" (≈65% of the weight on criteria only AET meets).

The live quiz is postponed. Load test: 100 players, no failures; at 300, only 56% of game-state requests and 40% of answers succeeded. No claim about 100–300 players until a server-side cache ships.

• International fees: the same set in every currency — AET, Luma Free and Plus, Tito, Hi.Events Cloud, Ticket Tailor, Humanitix, Eventbrite; unranked baselines — a Stripe link + form and self-hosted Hi.Events.
• Ukraine: services with published prices — AET, RegToEVENT + WayForPay, Eventmate, 2event. Gligle (subscription price unpublished) gets only a break-even; agents (Karabas, Kontramarka, Concert.ua, Internet-bilet) are described, not scored.
• Design: 11 platforms, listed in the design ranking.
• Not evaluated: Meetup, Zeffy, pretix, Momence, Bookwhen, TixFox — facts not verified; absence does not mean worse.

• Metric: total fees taken from the transaction, whoever pays — platform + processing + subscription. One ticket = one order.
• Buyer pays: the buyer price at which the organizer nets $25. For AET that's $26.06 = (25 + 0.30) ÷ (1 − 0.029): AET has no buyer-fee setting, so the organizer simply sets that price. The full table for every vendor is in the fee ranking.
• VAT: organizer not VAT-registered; added where the vendor quotes "+ VAT" (Ticket Tailor ×1.20 UK, ×1.23 Ireland) or VAT on its fee (Eventbrite UK +20%); other rows say "VAT not stated".
• Ticket Tailor prepaid: amortised ($0.70 / €0.56 / £0.48 per credit) and "cash this month" — the smallest real bundle (100 credits minimum).
• Eventbrite UK/IE: ranked on the help-article rate (6.95% + £0.59; 5.9% + €0.79); the "pricing page as fetched" row (likely US rates) is unranked. On the pricing-page figures Eventbrite would be last in every EUR and GBP table; on the help-article rate it is last in all but one (EUR 1 × 50 × €15, where Humanitix is last).
• Luma Plus: $59/month on an annual commitment ($708); ≈$69 monthly unverified.
• AET: Free up to 3 events/month, Pro $19 added from the 4th; a 30% premium/international card scenario (4.55% vs 4.10%).
• Ukraine: PRRO applied symmetrically — AET "check by mono" 180 UAH, RegToEVENT + WayForPay 0 UAH, Eventmate 249 UAH or none; with/without paid PRRO columns (the second = the free State Tax PRRO app, manual receipts). Mono's 0%-for-30-days promo excluded. Pro billed in USD: ±10% FX = 767–937 UAH. 2event at full tier + 3.5%.
• Merchant: the organizer; refunds and chargebacks come from their account, and the processor may hold funds. AET never holds money.

• Criterion weight = pain weight ÷ sum of in-scope pain weights × 100.
• Features: a pain's weight is split equally across its features (refunds 12.9; promo codes and discovery 8.6 each; 11 tool-sprawl features 1.38 each). Fees (16) and money control (18) are scored separately.
• Values: yes = 1, partly = ½, no = 0. Paid: 1 in feature coverage (generous to competitors), 0 in the main design view, 1 in a separate view.
• "?" is excluded from the known score; range from worst (? = 0) to best (? = 1).
• Money: linear from cheapest (full points) to most expensive (0); checked with rank-based points.
• Guards: AET-only criteria capped at 20% combined; a criterion equal for all becomes a gate with no weight.
• Checks: margin over #2; smallest single-weight shift that flips #1; rank if every "?" goes to competitors. A flip under 5 points means we don't publish, or we name the near-tie.

29 settings in five groups: identity, layout, media & decor, creation help, outside the page.

The general rules match the feature rules: yes = 1, partly = ½, no = 0; a "?" is shown as a range. A paid setting scores 0 in the main view, because the ranking is about design at no extra cost; a separate view counts paid settings. The "Made with AET" badge can't be removed on any plan, so AET scores 0 on that setting, and we don't count name.aet.events on Pro as a custom domain.

AET is #1 in 5 of 10 views, ties in 2, and RegToEVENT is #1 in 3. Every view, score and per-setting rule (Cyrillic, link preview, addresses on platform domains) is in the page design ranking.

• Vendor facts come only from the vendor's pages (pricing, help, demos, public event pages, Hi.Events' open code), with URL and date (Oct 1–2, 2026). Third-party sites are context only.
• When a vendor's pages disagree, we show both with a rule (Eventbrite UK/IE; 2event 7% vs 6.99% + 3.5%).
• AET's cells come from its code, "self-assessed". For design we link six demo pages by the AET team (not real events; every tool on them is on Free); a per-setting map to them will follow.
• No third-party organizers as AET evidence and no screenshots of real organizers — links only.
• Survey statistics mostly come from B2B samples.

• fees-scenarios.csv — currency, events/month, tickets, price, variant, gross, rank, tool, fees, %.
• fees-ukraine.csv — the same in UAH plus a with/without-PRRO column.
• features-37.csv — group, feature, tool, value (y, part, p, n, ?), note.
• design-29-controls.csv — control, group, platform, value, note, evidence URL.
• design-views.csv — view, leader and score, AET score and rank, next platform.
• ukraine-broad.csv — product, points per criterion, known score, "?" range.

Try your own scenario in the ticket fee calculator.

• Error or outdated price? Email support@anyeventtool.com with a link to the vendor page. We start right away: we check the source and update the number, CSV and changelog, usually within 5 working days; if the order changes, we say so at the top of the article.
• Any vendor we scored can send a short, sourced reply; factual replies go next to the table. We recheck prices at least once a quarter.
• Oct 2, 2026 — first publication: also the analysis "Paid events in Ukraine during the war"; methodology, three rankings, six CSVs. Older Learn pages (like the ticket fee comparison) used Oct 1, 2026 rates; the rankings' figures are current.