To ensure accuracy and transparency, the comparison sites now support verifiable feature information with source references.
Use the "unknown" status when information cannot be verified or is uncertain.
Status Types:
"strong"- Feature is fully supported and verified"partial"- Feature is partially supported or has limitations"none"- Feature is not available"unknown"- NEW - Information is uncertain or cannot be verified
Visual Indicators:
- ✅ Strong: Green checkmark
⚠️ Partial: Yellow warning- ❌ None: Gray X
- ❓ Unknown: Gray question mark
Add a reference field to any feature to link to the source documentation.
booleanFlags: {
status: "strong",
details: "Full boolean flag support",
reference: "https://example.com/docs/boolean-flags"
}geoTargeting: {
status: "unknown",
details: "Geographic targeting availability not confirmed",
reference: "https://example.com/docs" // optional
}customSegments: {
status: "strong",
details: "Advanced segment builder"
// No reference field - will work fine but no source link shown
}Use "unknown" status when:
- Documentation is unclear or contradictory
- Feature exists but details are uncertain
- Pricing/availability information cannot be confirmed
- Feature is in beta without clear documentation
DO:
- ✅ Link to official documentation pages
- ✅ Link to pricing pages for pricing features
- ✅ Link to feature-specific docs when available
- ✅ Use the most specific URL possible
DON'T:
- ❌ Link to blog posts (use official docs)
- ❌ Link to homepage (too general)
- ❌ Link to third-party sites (use official sources)
Good Examples:
// Specific feature documentation
reference: "https://launchdarkly.com/docs/home/flags/boolean";
// Pricing page for pricing features
reference: "https://mixpanel.com/pricing";
// API reference for technical features
reference: "https://posthog.com/docs/api/feature-flags";Bad Examples:
// Too general
reference: "https://example.com";
// Blog post (unstable)
reference: "https://example.com/blog/new-feature";
// Third-party site
reference: "https://reddit.com/r/featureflags";When updating provider information:
- Verify each feature against official documentation
- Mark unverifiable features as
"unknown" - Add
referenceURLs to all verified features - Use the most specific documentation URL available
- Test that reference links open correctly
- Ensure reference URLs use HTTPS
{
name: "ExampleProvider",
logo: <ExampleLogo />,
website: "https://example.com",
tagline: {
status: "strong",
details: "Feature flag platform for teams",
reference: "https://example.com"
},
features: {
// Verified with reference
booleanFlags: {
status: "strong",
details: "Full boolean flag support",
reference: "https://example.com/docs/flags/boolean"
},
// Partially supported with reference
geoTargeting: {
status: "partial",
details: "Via custom attributes only",
reference: "https://example.com/docs/targeting#geo"
},
// Not available (no reference needed)
aiRecommendations: {
status: "none",
details: "AI features not available"
},
// Uncertain - marked as unknown
scheduledRollouts: {
status: "unknown",
details: "Scheduling feature mentioned but not documented",
reference: "https://example.com/docs"
}
}
}When references are added:
- Collapsed View: Shows only status icons
- Expanded View: Shows details + "Source" link (if reference exists)
- Click Source: Opens reference URL in new tab
- Update type definitions ✅
- Update UI components ✅
- Update comparison tables ✅
- Review all providers
- Mark unverified features as "unknown"
- Add references where possible
- Add references to all verified features
- Prioritize high-impact features
- Focus on pricing and core features first
strong → 🟢 Green (Fully supported and verified)
partial → 🟡 Yellow (Partial support or limitations)
none → ⚪ Gray (Not available)
unknown → ⚪ Gray (Uncertain/unverified) - slightly faded
When uncertain about a feature:
- Check official documentation
- If unclear → use
"unknown"status - Add reference to best available docs
- Document uncertainty in details
Better to mark as "unknown" than to show incorrect information.