BuildFastWP exists because the "best WordPress plugin" lists we kept finding were written by people who had never actually used the tools. We fix that. Here's the exact process behind every score we publish.
We're a small team of WordPress developers and freelancers who've built hundreds of client sites over the past decade — agencies, portfolios, eCommerce stores, SaaS landing pages. Elementor has been at the centre of that work for most of it.
BuildFastWP started because we couldn't find a single review site that answered the questions we actually had: Is this plugin worth the subscription cost in year two, not just year one? Does this template kit survive real client content, or just the screenshots? So we built it ourselves.
No venture funding. No editorial quotas. No minimum review count per month to satisfy an ad network. We publish when we have something worth saying.
We only review tools we've actually used. If a plugin or template source doesn't survive a real deadline on a real project, it doesn't get a recommendation — regardless of how high the commission is.
We show the year-two price. Most comparison articles show the intro offer and stop there. We show what you actually pay once the honeymoon pricing ends — because that's what the tool really costs.
We review the competition honestly. TemplateGoat is our top pick because the value genuinely is better. But Envato Elements is the right answer for some teams, and we say so. A ranking only means something if the alternatives got a fair trial.
We update when things change. Plugin pricing shifts. New versions break compatibility. Better tools emerge. We track these and update our scores — we don't publish and forget.
Every review follows the same process. No shortcuts when the deadline is tight.
We identify tools worth reviewing by monitoring WordPress community discussion, plugin repository data, and direct developer feedback. A tool makes the shortlist when it has real adoption — not just a well-funded marketing campaign. We don't review tools that ask us to review them unless they're already on the shortlist independently.
We start with a clean WordPress install — no pre-existing plugins, no inherited configuration. The tool gets installed and activated as a new user would do it, following only the documentation available to any customer. This surfaces onboarding issues that are invisible when you already know the product.
We use the tool to build actual site sections, import actual template kits, and complete workflows a client site requires: homepage, service pages, contact forms, blog layout. Template kits get tested with real client content — not the placeholder text from the preview. That's where the cracks show up.
We track how long each workflow actually takes — from download to a page that looks like the preview, from blank canvas to a client-ready import. We note every configuration step that required external documentation, every error message, every incompatibility. Time is a developer's real currency. We treat it that way.
Before scoring, we compile structured notes: what worked immediately, what required workarounds, what broke, how support responded (we contact support as a regular user — no "we're reviewing you" disclosures). These notes are the basis for the pros and cons in every review.
We check pricing at the time of publication, not from memory or a previous visit. We calculate the year-two cost separately — what you actually pay once the tool is part of your stack and the intro offer has expired. Subscription tools that look cheap in year one often look very different in year three.
We score against our four criteria (detailed in the next section) using the documented findings. Scores are not impressions — they're derived from specific data points: library size, import time, pricing maths, support response quality. A tool can't score a 10 in value if the year-two price makes it expensive relative to alternatives.
The written review is an editorial pass over the notes — not marketing copy. Every claim is tied to a finding from the testing phase. After publishing, we log the tool in our update tracker with a trigger list: major version release, pricing change, significant new competitor, or six months elapsed — whichever comes first.
The weights aren't arbitrary — they reflect what we've seen matter most in hundreds of real build decisions.
The single largest factor. A tool has to justify its price relative to what it provides and what comparable tools cost — in year one and year two. Lifetime deals score higher than equivalent subscriptions when quality is comparable.
Design quality is judged against 2026 standards, not what was impressive in 2021. We assess each kit with real content — not the stock photos from the preview — because that's where layout decisions either hold up or fall apart.
How quickly a competent Elementor developer can get from download to a client-ready page. We include the import process, compatibility with the current Elementor version, and the quality of documentation when things don't work first time.
We contact support as regular users — no editorial disclosure — and measure response time and quality. We also track how frequently new kits or updates ship and whether the library is visibly growing or quietly stagnating.
Affiliate relationships are standard practice on review sites. Here's exactly how ours work — and where they stop.
On affiliate links: Some links on BuildFastWP earn a commission if you make a purchase. Those commissions help us keep the site running and free to read. They have no effect on our rankings or scores. TemplateGoat is our top pick because it genuinely offers the best value per site built — not because of the affiliate arrangement. If that changes, the ranking changes.
A score published in January 2026 isn't necessarily accurate in August. Here's what sends a review back into testing.
Any change to a tool's pricing — new tiers, introductory offers ending, subscription model shifts — triggers an immediate score update on the value-for-money criterion. Prices are re-verified every 90 days regardless.
A major version of a plugin or significant update to a template library goes back through the relevant testing steps. Compatibility, ease of use, and quality scores are all reassessed. We don't assume version bumps are improvements.
When a significant new tool enters a category we cover, we add it to the shortlist. Existing rankings are reassessed in context. A tool that scored 9.0 before a better alternative exists may score differently after.
Now you know exactly how they were written. Start with our most-read guide.