Ranked and rated

Providers in one table: what a guest has to install, what resolution comes back, how long the album stays up, and the price for a single event.

The columns are set before any provider goes in. So the ranking is decided by what lands in the cells, not by the order we happened to write them in.

If a provider does not publish a number, the cell says "not stated" rather than an estimate. A guess in a comparison table is worse than a blank.

When a provider changes pricing or limits, the grid gets measured again, and it carries the date it was measured. A table with no date is a claim about last year.

The source sits under every row, so a number can be checked without taking our word for it.

What the table leaves out on purpose: anything we cannot measure the same way for everyone. Design, how an album feels to scroll, whether support answers on a Sunday — these matter, and putting a score on them would be inventing precision. They belong in the write-ups underneath, in words, where a reader can disagree with them. A grid is only worth reading if every cell in it came from the same question.

Read the grid for the shape, not the winner. Providers cluster — a group built around free tiers with hard caps, a group built around one-off event pricing, a couple built around hardware you rent. Knowing which cluster fits your night narrows the field faster than any single row does.