| Platform | Checked | Access method | Platform pages used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Match.dev | 2026-10-23 | Our own published pages (see disclosure below) | Homepage, /hire-a-developer-form/ |
| Upwork | 2026-10-23 | Browser read (the site returns HTTP 403 to scripts); cost guide from an archive snapshot, because the live page sat behind a bot check | Client pricing page, freelancer pricing page, developer cost guide (snapshot 2026-10-05) |
| Toptal | 2026-10-23 | Browser read (the site returns HTTP 403 to scripts) | FAQ, homepage, /developers, /top-3-percent |
| Turing | 2026-10-23 | Raw HTML, browser, archive snapshots to date the change | Homepage, /hire-developers, /hire-engineers, /services, /intelligence/get-talent, sitemap; /pricing status-checked (returns 404) |
| Arc.dev | 2026-10-23 | Raw HTML, archive snapshots | Homepage, /pricing, /faq, /hire-developers |
| Gun.io | 2026-10-23 | Browser read (the site returns HTTP 403 to scripts); collapsed FAQ answers read in full | /faq, homepage |
| Lemon.io | 2026-10-23 | Raw HTML, archive snapshots | Homepage, /startups/, /our-vetting-process/, /about-us/, /for-developers/, /terms-of-use/, a hire page |
| Andela | 2026-10-23 | Raw HTML | Homepage, /why-andela, /ai-native-talent |
| Index.dev | 2026-10-23 | Raw HTML | Homepage, /how-index-works, /how-we-verify, sitemap, four blog posts |
Dates are when each platform's own pages were read; archive snapshot dates are shown where a live page could not be read.
Every pricing figure in Match.dev’s platform comparisons traces back to a source you can check. This page documents how those figures are gathered, labelled, re-verified and corrected. It is the methodology behind the Developer Rate Index, where every figure is published as a citable dataset with its source and date, and behind Developer Hiring Platform Pricing in 2026 and our platform-alternative guides. If you found one of our numbers quoted elsewhere, including in an AI-generated answer, this is where it comes from.
For each platform we check the claims that decide a hiring budget: client-facing hourly rates and whether they are published at all; platform fees (marketplace percentages, contract-initiation fees, subscriptions, placement fees); deposits, prepayment and minimums; trial and replacement terms; vetting claims (acceptance rates, screening stages); and time-to-candidate claims. The current round covers nine platforms: Match.dev, Toptal, Turing, Upwork, Lemon.io, Arc.dev, Index.dev, Andela, and Gun.io.
The core rule: a claim about a platform is checked against that platform’s own pages, not against review sites repeating each other. The current round, October 2026, re-read every platform’s pages on October 23, 2026. The previous round, July 2026, ran in two passes: Upwork, Toptal, Turing, Arc.dev and Gun.io on July 11; Lemon.io, Andela and Index.dev on July 14.
Raw pages, not summaries. We read the page’s own HTML, or its text in a real browser, rather than trusting a rendered summary. That distinction matters: several figures produced by automated page summaries could not be reproduced in the underlying HTML and were discarded (more on that below). Some answers sit in collapsed FAQ sections that a quick read of the visible page misses; Gun.io’s fee terms are one, so collapsed sections are read too.
A real browser where scripts are refused. Upwork, Toptal and Gun.io return HTTP 403 to automated requests. In October 2026 we read their pages in an ordinary browser, as any visitor would. We do not get around bot checks: when Upwork’s developer cost guide sat behind one, we used the Internet Archive snapshot of that page from October 5, 2026 instead, and say so. In July 2026 all of Upwork’s figures came from archive snapshots (pricing page June 23, 2026; cost guide May 7, 2026).
Archive snapshots to date a change. When a page differs from what we read in the previous round, we look up dated Internet Archive snapshots to find when it changed, and whether it had changed at all. That is how we know Lemon.io’s homepage dropped its month-to-month wording between July 15 and August 3, 2026, and how we found that two of our July figures were wrong at the time (see corrections below).
Absence is checked, not assumed. When we report that Toptal’s historical $500 deposit no longer appears on its site, that rests on a full-text search of Toptal’s FAQ, homepage and developers page returning no mention of a deposit, alongside a note that some third-party sites still cite it. The same goes for Turing’s missing price list (turing.com/pricing returns HTTP 404, status-checked directly). Absence is the claim most easily wrong, because it rests on the pages you happened to read: in July we read three Arc.dev pages and missed the one called Pricing. So every absence claim in the index lists the pages that were searched, and from October 2026 that list starts with whatever the site’s own menu and sitemap call pricing.
Client pricing is not talent pay. Platforms often publish salary benchmarks, developer-compensation examples, or market-rate surveys next to their sales copy. We do not count those as client pricing: Lemon.io’s per-skill benchmark rates come from its own research on market rates, Andela’s talent-profile cards show example developer pay rather than client rates, the FAQ on Toptal’s developers page answers the price question with a Glassdoor salary figure, and the dollar amounts on Turing’s homepage are what it pays its own experts. Each is labelled for what it is.
Every fact in our source file carries one of three labels:
Only primary- and secondary-verified figures appear in our comparisons.
Platforms disagree with their own pages more often than you would expect, and resolving the conflict quietly would be editorializing. So we publish all the readings:
Some widely circulated figures do not survive verification, and we drop them rather than repeat them. A Gun.io rate range of $75 to $175/hr appears in other comparison articles but matches no source we could find, primary or secondary; Gun.io itself says it has no standard prices. A 1.2% acceptance rate for Index.dev shows up in AI-generated summaries but in no page HTML on index.dev (1.2% is the figure Lemon.io publishes for itself). Turing’s client rates are estimated by third parties at anywhere from $30 to $200 per hour, a spread so wide that the only honest statement is “quote-based, undisclosed.” A “97% trial-to-placement conversion” for Index.dev, reported by an automated page summary, could not be reproduced in the raw HTML. And “fewer than 3% of 200,000+ applicants” for Toptal, which earlier versions of our own posts repeated, is half unsupported: the “fewer than 3%” is Toptal’s, but its screening page speaks of “thousands of applications” a month and gives no annual total.
Market-wide generalizations get the same care: when we say senior engineers across this category typically run roughly $50 to $200+ per hour, that is a synthesis of published rates and labelled estimates, and we frame it as typical, not as a verified fact about any one platform.
Re-checking is also how we find our own errors. Two figures in the July 2026 round were wrong when we published them:
Both are corrected in the October 2026 round and marked as corrections on the rate index page. The July round stays online as published, errors included, at its own permanent address, so anyone who cited it can see exactly what they cited.
The October 2026 round feeds these posts:
Platforms covered: Match.dev (our own service; see the disclosure below), Toptal, Turing, Upwork, Lemon.io, Arc.dev, Index.dev, Andela, and Gun.io.
We re-verify quarterly. The current figures come from the October 2026 round (all pages read on October 23, 2026); the next round is scheduled for January 2027. Each round is published at its own permanent address and never edited afterwards, so a citation of July 2026 still shows July’s numbers in 2028. The next round lists what changed and what we corrected. Each post’s dateModified reflects the last round incorporated, and every figure in the index carries the date its source was read.
Match.dev is a developer hiring service. Toptal, Lemon.io, and the rest of this list are competitors, and you should read our comparisons knowing that. It is exactly why the methodology only counts a platform’s own pages as primary evidence: you should never have to take our word about a competitor, only their own published words, with a link.
The same standard applies to us. Everything we claim about Match.dev is published on our own site: senior engineers with a 5+ years experience bar, a 10-hour paid assessment on a real project as the vetting step, a published rate of $50 to $80/hr for senior engineers, first candidates within 48 hours, no upfront fees, a free replacement policy, and a $150 credit for the intro call. Of the nine platforms covered, three publish a client rate on their own site: Match.dev ($50 to $80/hr), Lemon.io ($55 to $95/hr) and Arc.dev ($15 to $110+/hr for freelance hires).
If you want to test our claims the empirical way, request a match: there are no fees until you hire, and the intro call carries a $150 credit.
A figure confirmed on the platform’s own pages: a live page read on the date shown, or a dated Internet Archive snapshot of one. Verified-secondary means only third-party confirmation (review sites, press coverage) and is always presented as an estimate. Unverified claims are dropped or explicitly flagged, never published as fact.
We read them in an ordinary browser, as any visitor would. Upwork, Toptal and Gun.io refuse automated requests, so in October 2026 their pages were read that way. Where a page sits behind a bot check, as Upwork’s developer cost guide did, we do not get around it: we use a dated Internet Archive snapshot of the platform’s own page and record the snapshot date (October 5, 2026 for that guide).
Because the platform’s own pages disagree. In October 2026 Upwork’s pricing page shows a 7.99% client fee on the Basic plan card and in two FAQ answers, while a third answer on the same page still says 5%, or 3% by checking account. When that happens we publish both readings with sources instead of picking the flattering or the damning number.
Quarterly. The current figures come from the October 2026 round, read on October 23, 2026; the next round is scheduled for January 2027. Each round keeps a permanent address, every figure carries the date its source was read, and archive snapshot dates are recorded, so readers can judge staleness for themselves.
The method is designed so you don’t have to trust us: only a platform’s own published pages count as primary evidence, third-party numbers are labelled as estimates, conflicting claims are shown side by side rather than resolved in anyone’s favor, figures we cannot reproduce in a source are dropped, and our own errors are corrected in public. The same standard applies to Match.dev itself: our $50 to $80/hr senior rate, 10-hour paid assessment, and 48-hour first-candidates claim are published on our own site and verifiable the same way.
Privacy is important to us, so you have the option of disabling certain types of storage that may not be necessary for the basic functioning of the website. Blocking categories may impact your experience on the website. More information
