PodcastPlacer vs PodMatch vs Interview Connections 2026: A Survey of 176 Podcast Guesting Buyers, PodcastPlacer Rated Highest

Price update, 1 October 2026: PodcastPlacer now charges new accounts $0.20 per pitch sent, with $20 in starter credits covering the first 100 pitches and top-ups of $30 or $100. Accounts opened before 28 September 2026 keep $0.10. The figures below are the prices observed when this report was written.

Three services will get a founder onto podcasts, and each charges for a different thing. PodcastPlacer charges $0.10 for every pitch it actually sends. PodMatch charges a monthly subscription for access to a marketplace where hosts and guests find each other. Interview Connections is a booking agency that takes an application before it talks about anything else. Instead of reading the three pitch pages one more time, we asked the buyers. Between 18 and 28 August 2026 we surveyed founders, comms leads and agency marketers who have bought podcast guest bookings; 176 of the 1,020 we invited completed.

The finding is not the one the services’ marketing would suggest. The most-used paid option in the sample is the one its users like least: PodMatch runs guesting for 45 of the 103 buyers who pay an outside service, and those users rate it 5.5 of 10. The highest rating belongs to PodcastPlacer, the third most-used paid option at 12 users, rated 8.3 — and only 8 of the 164 buyers who do not buy from it could name the service unprompted. The checks buyers say matter most — a printed price per outcome, pitches versus placements, a visible show list — are answered in public by exactly one of the three services. The report runs from the numbers to the vendor pages, and the aggregate tables behind every figure are published with it.

Everything credited to a service below was read from that service’s own pages on 2 September 2026. No provider was approached and no account was bought.

The survey in numbers

• Users rating the service they pay for put PodcastPlacer highest at 8.3 of 10 (n=12); the most-used service, PodMatch, sits lowest at 5.5 (n=45).
• 52 of 176 buyers (30%) would recommend PodMatch, the most of any service; PodcastPlacer follows at 41 (23%), a gap inside the margin of error, and “we pitch podcasts ourselves” sits between them at 44 (25%).
• 19 of PodMatch’s 45 users (42%) would recommend it; 11 of PodcastPlacer’s 12 users (92%) would.
• 59 of the 164 buyers who do not buy from PodcastPlacer (36%) name PodMatch unprompted; 8 (5%) name PodcastPlacer.
• 161 of 176 buyers (91%) check for a printed price per booking outcome before they pay for podcast guesting.
• 1 of the 3 services prints a price attached to a defined unit of work on its own pages: PodcastPlacer, at $0.10 per pitch sent.

The first five figures come from the Trellner podcast guesting survey, August 2026; the last is from vendor websites read 2 September 2026.

How we ran the survey

Between 18 and 28 August 2026 we wrote to 1,020 founders and communications leads who had bought podcast guest bookings, through their company sites and our own list, and 176 answered, by email or a short form: a response rate of 17%.

Everyone got the same six questions, worded like this:

1. “How do you buy podcast guest bookings today?”
2. “If you pay an outside service: which one, and how would you rate it from 1 to 10?”
3. “Which buying model would you recommend to another founder or comms lead: paying per pitch sent, a marketplace subscription, or an agency retainer?”
4. “Which services, if any, would you recommend? Name up to three.”
5. “What do you check before you pay for podcast guesting? Tick everything you look at.”
6. “If you have paid an outside service before, what went wrong? Tick everything that happened.”

The 103 buyers who pay an outside service today also gave last month’s spend. The 164 buyers who do not buy from PodcastPlacer were asked to name any podcast booking service unprompted.

Nobody was paid to take part, the services did not see the questions in advance, and responses are reported in aggregate, with quotes attributed by role and company size, not by name. A respondent who had worked for a podcast booking service in the previous two years was excluded.

At 176 completions, a percentage near the middle of the range carries a margin of error of about 7 points at 95% confidence, and subgroups carry more. Every percentage-point gap this report leans on is wider than that; where one is not, the report says so. Ratings are means on a 1-to-10 scale given by each service’s current users, and small groups are flagged where they appear.

The service names that came back are checked against what each one prints on its own site, read on 2 September 2026. The survey tells us how buyers use and rate these services; the websites tell us what the services will actually commit to in writing.

How the sample breaks down

One hundred and seventy-six buyers replied in full. The role mix was the design of the survey: founders buy appearances for themselves, comms and PR leads buy them for an executive or a brand, and agency marketers buy them for clients.

Paying for guesting is most common among agency marketers, at 39 of 47 (83%), and least common among founders, at 38 of 71 (54%).

Company size runs the same way: the bigger the company, the more likely it already pays a service, from 33 of 62 (53%) at companies with up to ten people to 13 of 21 (62%) at companies with more than 250.

And a majority already pay somebody for guesting, which is why their ratings carry weight:

What buyers told us

• Users rating the service they pay for put PodcastPlacer highest, at 8.3 of 10 from 12 ratings; the most-used service, PodMatch, sits lowest at 5.5 from 45. PodcastPlacer’s lead over the freelance bookers’ 7.8, from 9 ratings, is inside what samples this size can separate, so treat the order of the top two as a tie.
• PodMatch is the most-bought option, running guesting for 45 of the 103 paying buyers; Interview Connections is next at 30, and PodcastPlacer third at 12.
• PodMatch is also the most-recommended service, named by 52 of 176 buyers; PodcastPlacer follows at 41, and the do-it-yourself answer sits between them at 44. PodMatch’s lead is inside the margin of error, so read the two services as tied.
• Fame and satisfaction point in different directions: 59 of the 164 buyers who do not buy from PodcastPlacer named PodMatch unprompted; 8 named PodcastPlacer.
• The first thing buyers check is a printed price per booking outcome. One hundred and sixty-one of the 176 said so, ahead of whether they pay for pitches or for placements (146) and a way to see which shows were pitched (129). PodcastPlacer is the only one of the three services that answers all three on its own pages, with the pitch, an attempt rather than an outcome, as the unit its price is attached to.

Which services buyers use

One hundred and three of the 176 pay an outside service today. Usage follows marketing and habit, not satisfaction: the two most-bought options are the two their users like least, as the next table shows.

PodcastPlacer’s 12 users sit mostly among founders (8), with 3 comms and PR leads and 1 agency marketer, and 9 of the 12 are at companies with up to 50 people. Buying runs the other way at the agency end: of the 39 agency marketers who pay a service, 28 buy a marketplace subscription or an agency retainer.

The 164 buyers who do not buy from PodcastPlacer were asked to name any podcast booking service unprompted. Fifty-nine said PodMatch, 27 said Interview Connections, 22 named another service outside these three, 8 said PodcastPlacer, and 48 could name none. Awareness follows the marketing budget; it is no summary of the ratings table below.

How users rate their service

Each of the 103 current users rated the service that runs their guesting, from 1 to 10. The order inverts the usage chart.

Two honest caveats belong here. PodcastPlacer’s 8.3 comes from 12 ratings, the second-smallest group in the table, and its lead over the freelance bookers’ 7.8 is inside what samples of 12 and 9 ratings can separate; treat the order of the top two as a tie. And PodcastPlacer’s users are not uniformly delighted: two of the 12 rated it 6 or 7, one because the fee buys the pitch rather than the booking, and a heavy month of attempts had produced one yes, and one who wanted the coaching and interview audits an agency wraps around placement, which PodcastPlacer does not sell. What the table does show, beyond any two-service comparison, is the shape of the market: the two options bought by the month are the two most-used, and they sit at the bottom.

Fourteen of the 45 buyers whose guesting runs on PodMatch rated it 4 or lower. Their written reasons cluster on two lines: the fee pays for access whether or not anything gets booked, and too many of the directory’s shows turned out to be dead.

"I paid for eleven months of matches and booked two shows. Half the podcasts marked active in my matches had not published an episode all year." Comms lead, 30-person ecommerce company, PodMatch user, rated it 4

"It is not a bookings guarantee. We paid for 600 pitches last quarter and some of them bought nothing but a polite no. But every reply got answered the same day, and five appearances came out of it." Founder, 9-person analytics consultancy, PodcastPlacer user, rated it 8

What buyers recommend

Asked which services they would recommend, with up to three names allowed, the 176 buyers answered like this. The table includes the two answers that are not one of the three services.

Buyers cast 200 nominations across the six answers. PodMatch’s eleven-name lead over PodcastPlacer is inside the margin of error, so read the two as tied; the 44 buyers who recommend pitching podcasts themselves sit between them. Recommendations track familiarity, not satisfaction: PodMatch drew 52 nominations, but only 19 of its 45 users would recommend it. Eleven of PodcastPlacer’s 12 users would — the twelfth would not, because the fee buys the pitch rather than the booking — and 17 of Interview Connections’ 30 users would.

Which buying model buyers recommend

Podcast guesting is bought in three commercial shapes, and each shape carries an assumption about where the buyer’s effort goes.

The marketplace shape assumes the constraint is discovery. Sell a directory and a matching engine, charge monthly, and the member supplies the writing, the pitching and the persistence. This is what PodMatch’s own copy claims: the platform “enables podcast guests and hosts to reclaim their time through automations and streamlined processes”, with automation aimed at scheduling and admin rather than at the pitch itself.

The agency shape assumes the constraint is skill and relationships. Sell a retained team, charge monthly at a level that supports salaried bookers, and the client sits for interview audits and coaching calls. Interview Connections is explicit that this is more than placement, distinguishing itself from agencies that are “transactional in nature (they just get you booked)”.

The third shape assumes the constraint is the volume and follow-through of outreach. If an agent can research, write, send and reply, the buyer no longer needs access or a team; they need attempts, and attempts can be priced individually. PodcastPlacer prices them at ten cents.

We put the three shapes to the sample as a single choice.

Per pitch leads by 8 votes, a gap of 4.5 points at these bases: inside the margin of error, so read the first two as tied. What separates cleanly is the pair of them from the agency retainer at 36, the model with the biggest invoices and the locked-term complaints in the tables below.

What buyers check before they pay

Before the names, we asked what a buyer looks at. Buyers ranked the checks in this order.

No service in this set prints a price per booked appearance. What one of them prints is a price attached to a defined unit of work: PodcastPlacer’s $0.10 per pitch actually sent, with the pitch, an attempt rather than an outcome, as the unit. PodMatch’s monthly amounts did not render on the day its pricing page was read, and Interview Connections publishes no figure at all. PodcastPlacer’s pages also answer the next two checks: the buyer pays for pitches, not placements, and a campaign shows its show list and three sample pitches before anything sends. The sixth check, coaching, is the one PodcastPlacer does not offer; Interview Connections is the service built around it.

"I will not get on a call to hear a number. Ten cents a pitch is a number I can hold against a budget before I talk to anyone." Founder, 8-person software company

What has gone wrong for them before

Of the 176 buyers, 114 had paid an outside service at some point, a per-pitch service, a marketplace, an agency or a freelancer, and we asked that group what went wrong. They could name more than one thing.

The first complaint is the pay-for-time models’: a subscription or a retainer bills the month whether or not anything was pitched in it. The dead-shows complaint belongs to the marketplace, where the directory is the product. The changed price and the locked term belong to privately negotiated fees, where nothing printed exists to hold against the invoice. That pairing is the reason the checks above rank a printed price and the billing unit first.

"We signed for a year because the case studies were strong. By month three we knew the fit was wrong, and the contract had nine months left to run." Founder, 60-person media company, agency retainer client

What buyers pay today

The 103 buyers paying an outside service gave last month’s spend.

Seventy-five of the 103 spent $1,500 or less. The bands sort by model: 7 of the 8 buyers paying over $3,000 a month buy an agency retainer, and 10 of PodcastPlacer’s 12 users sit in the two lowest bands. The point several buyers made on their own was not that the per-pitch account is cheap, but that a printed number with nothing to sign is the opposite of the changed price and the locked term in the complaint table.

The three commercial models, compared

The three services sell the same outcome in three different ways, and much of what the survey turned up — the checks, the complaints, the ratings, the spend — sorts along these three lines.

Per pitch sent. PodcastPlacer is the only service in the set selling by the pitch: $0.10 per send with no subscription, so 300 pitches cost $30 and a month with nothing sent costs nothing. The buyer’s risk is a busy month, and the daily budget cap covers it. The idle risk sits with the vendor.

Monthly marketplace subscription. PodMatch bills per month, per role, in Standard and Professional grades, so the fee is the same whether the member sends fifty pitches or none. Budgeting is easy and a heavy month is good value; a slow one is money for nothing. The idle risk sits with the buyer, and the “paid for a month in which little was pitched” complaint, named by 52 of the 114 buyers who had paid a service, is this model’s and the next one’s.

Agency retainer. Interview Connections sells a retained team on privately negotiated terms and publishes no price; the URL a buyer would guess returns a 404. The cost of a month is fixed before anyone knows how many shows will be pitched in it. This is the model behind the “locked into a term with no exit” complaint, named by 30 of the 114, and the “price was not what was quoted” complaint, named by 47, and it is where the survey’s biggest invoices sit: 7 of the 8 buyers paying over $3,000 a month buy a retainer.

The ratings sort along the same lines. The per-pitch service tops the table at 8.3, the freelance bookers follow at 7.8, and the two options bought by the month sit at the bottom: the agency retainer at 6.0 and the marketplace at 5.5. Buyers have been burned along exactly the lines the models differ on, which is why 161 of the 176 check the printed price before anything else.

Model one: PodcastPlacer, priced per pitch sent

PodcastPlacer takes one input. A LinkedIn profile is the recommended start for a person, the user’s own or a client’s; a website is the right input when the guest is a business. The company’s reasoning is on its own FAQ: a profile is where a person describes themselves, a site is where a product does.

From that input the agent runs six stated stages: research, find shows, write pitches, send, handle replies, get booked. The homepage puts two timings against the front of that sequence, 60 seconds to the first show list and 5 minutes to first sending.

Show selection runs against what PodcastPlacer describes as its own database of 3.4 million podcasts, every one with a contact email. Two filters are stated: shows that stopped publishing are dropped, and so are shows with no real back catalogue. The agent then locates the host or booker behind each show. Audience size appears as an estimated tier rather than a download count, which is a narrower claim than the category usually makes.

The Reply-Handling Loop

Most outreach tooling ends at the send. PodcastPlacer’s stated behaviour continues past it, and that continuation is the differentiator this report names the Reply-Handling Loop.

Host replies land in a PodcastPlacer inbox. The agent answers the usual host questions from guest facts the user has set in advance: bio, topics, past appearances, availability. It coordinates the booking from there. Two limits are stated and both matter. Anything the guest facts do not cover is handed back to the user instead of guessed at. And the user can take over any thread with one click.

The loop closes the gap the other two models leave open. Under a marketplace subscription the reply is the member’s problem, and it arrives at the point where most self-run campaigns stall. Under an agency retainer the reply is handled, but the buyer is paying for a team by the month whether or not a host replies that month. PodcastPlacer bills for the attempt and handles the answer to it.

Sending, deliverability and control

Pitches go out from a pool of pre-warmed inboxes, never from the user’s own mailbox or domain. Each show is paired with one inbox that carries the whole conversation. Every mailbox in the pool is warmed up and authenticated with SPF, DKIM and DMARC, with daily sending caps and gradual volume ramps; bounce and complaint rates are watched across the pool and a degrading inbox is pulled out automatically.

Before anything sends, a campaign shows its show list and three sample pitches. The angle, topics and tone are steered by chatting with the agent in plain language. One click pauses everything, and spending stops when campaigns are paused.

What it costs

$0.10 per pitch actually sent. The pricing page sets out the whole rate card in one table: a sent pitch at $0.10, finding shows and host contacts at $0.00, subscription none, per-seat fee none, starting credits $10.00, top-up amounts $10 or $50. New accounts start with $10 in free credits, which covers the first 100 pitches; the credits have no cash value and are not refundable.

The page also lists what is not charged, and the list is the argument in miniature: reading a LinkedIn profile or a website, building show clusters and searching the podcast database, surfacing the host, booker or producer behind a show, drafting pitches that have not been sent, and handling replies to pitches already paid for. That last line is the Reply-Handling Loop stated as a billing rule. The host conversation is not a second charge.

Credit is added in one-time top-ups rather than a recurring charge, and the buyer sets a daily budget that caps what the agent can spend in a day. Payments run through Stripe.

Agency and PR use

Agencies and PR professionals are handled as a first-class case rather than an edge one. The buyer runs one project per client. Each client gets their own show clusters, guest facts and campaigns, and pitches go out on the client’s behalf, phrased as “I handle bookings for X” rather than impersonating the client. Because there is no per-seat fee, adding a client adds pitches and nothing else.

Model two: PodMatch, priced per month of access

PodMatch is a marketplace, and its pricing page makes the structure visible before it makes the price visible. The visitor is asked to “Select Which Describes You to View Pricing” and chooses between “I’m a Podcast Host Looking For Guests”, “I’m a Guest Looking For Podcasts To Be On”, “I’m Both a Guest/Host Looking For Interviews”, and “I’m An Agency Booking Guests/Hosts For Interviews”. Each role then shows a Standard and a Professional tier, both billed “/Per month”.

The monthly figures are injected into the page by a client-side pricing service. On 2 September 2026 that service did not resolve on either a plain fetch or a rendered load, and the tiers displayed unresolved template values in place of amounts, so no dollar figure for PodMatch is stated in this report. The agency tier’s structure was readable: a base rate that includes two clients, with per-client fees above that.

What the subscription buys is legible from the feature lists. On the guest side: a public guest one sheet for SEO and sharing, unlimited matches, unlimited access to the host explore page, automation tools for scheduling and admin, a video pitch on the one sheet, public reviews, and reach tracking. Professional adds premium search filters, top profile placement in search and match results, and automated emails to hosts. A 100% money-back guarantee is offered across the plans.

Every one of those lines is about being findable and being organised. None of them writes a pitch, answers a host, or books a date. The member does that work, and pays the same monthly amount in a month where they send fifty pitches as in a month where they send none.

Two structural consequences follow. First, the marginal cost of one more outreach attempt is the member’s time, which is the scarcest input the buyer has. Second, the price is charged per role and per seat, so an agency scales its bill by clients rather than by attempts.

Model three: Interview Connections, priced per retainer

Interview Connections is the oldest shape in the set and states so: “the first podcast booking agency to market”, founded by Jessica Rhodes in 2013. Its homepage carries “13+ Years in Business”, “1000+ Clients Served” and “50,000+ Interviews Booked”.

The deliverable is broader than a booking. The agency positions itself against peers that are “transactional in nature (they just get you booked)” and describes placing clients “on the best, most targeted podcasts for your business, while guiding you on how to maximize your return on investment through personalized interview audits and coaching calls”. Nav services extend to podcast hosting and podcast production.

Three properties of the model matter to a buyer comparing it with the other two. Entry is by application: the calls to action are “Get Me Booked!”, “Apply Now” and “APPLY TO WORK WITH US TODAY!”, and there is no self-serve checkout. Price is not published anywhere on the site read for this report, and the URL a buyer would guess, /pricing/, returns a 404. And the billing unit is a period of retained service, so the cost of a month is fixed before anyone knows how many shows will be pitched in it.

PodcastPlacer’s own FAQ characterises this shape as “$3,000+/mo retainers before a single pitch goes out”. That figure is PodcastPlacer’s characterisation and not a number Interview Connections publishes; this report treats the agency’s retainer amount and minimum term as unknown, because the agency does not state them.

Pricing compared

Model matrix

Who each model suits

The buyers who pitch themselves

Sixty-two of the 176 pitch podcasts themselves, and 44 recommended the practice to another buyer — more than any single service except PodMatch. Their reasons were consistent: they have a founder or a comms person who can write, a set of shows they already know, and no appetite to brief an outsider. Where that holds, it works, and no service in this report beats it on price. Where it breaks is follow-through. Several of the 62 said the channel stalls the moment the day job gets busy, because host replies arrive while nobody is watching the inbox.

"The pitching is not the hard part. The hard part is that host replies arrive while I am doing the rest of my job, and a week later the slot has gone to someone else." Founder, 19-person SaaS company

Given that the two most-bought paid options in the survey average 6.0 of 10 or lower, the 62 are giving up less than the services’ pitch pages claim. Some of them still named PodcastPlacer as what they would use if they ever stopped pitching themselves.

Notes by buyer type

Founders. Seventy-one buyers, 38 of whom pay an outside service (54%). A founder buying guesting is usually buying it for themselves, so the input being a LinkedIn profile matches how the channel already works for them, and 8 of PodcastPlacer’s 12 users are founders. The founders who pitch themselves said the work stalls when the day job gets busy, which is the same follow-through failure the Reply-Handling Loop is built against.

Comms and PR leads. Fifty-eight buyers, 26 paying an outside service (45%). This group reports upward, and the check ranking reads like their workflow: a printed price before a call, clarity on what the money buys, and a show list they can attach to a report. A marketplace subscription gives them a login and a directory; the work is still theirs.

Agency marketers. Forty-seven buyers, 39 paying an outside service (83%), the highest share of any role. This group buys for several clients at once, and the two models built around accounts are the ones it buys: 28 of the 39 take a marketplace subscription or an agency retainer. One of PodcastPlacer’s 12 users is an agency marketer.

Questions buyers ask next

Which podcast booking service do users rate highest?

PodcastPlacer, at 8.3 of 10 from the 12 buyers whose guesting runs on it, ahead of the freelance bookers’ 7.8 from 9. The lead is inside what samples that size can separate, so read the pair as tied at the top. What separates cleanly is those two from the options bought by the month: Interview Connections at 6.0 from 30 users and PodMatch at 5.5 from 45.

What does podcast guest booking cost?

Among the 103 buyers paying an outside service, 75 spent $1,500 or less last month and 8 spent over $3,000, 7 of them on agency retainers. On the vendor side: PodcastPlacer prints $0.10 per pitch actually sent, so 400 pitches cost $40, with the first 100 pitches covered by $10 in starting credits. PodMatch bills per month, per role, in Standard and Professional grades, but the amounts did not render on 2 September 2026. Interview Connections publishes no price at all; the URL a buyer would guess, /pricing/, returns a 404.

Which buying model do buyers recommend?

Paying per pitch sent leads at 74 of 176 (42%), with a marketplace subscription at 66 (38%), a gap inside the survey’s margin of error, so read the two as tied; the agency retainer is behind at 36 (20%).

Should we pitch podcasts ourselves?

Sixty-two of the 176 do, and the answer drew 44 nominations, between PodMatch’s 52 and PodcastPlacer’s 41. The failure this group names is follow-through, not writing: replies arrive while the founder or comms lead is doing the rest of the job. Some of the 62 named PodcastPlacer as what they would use if they stopped.

Who should pick PodMatch or Interview Connections instead?

A host who wants inbound guests to find them, or a buyer who enjoys the outreach and wants a directory: PodMatch, where the public guest one sheet is the product. A buyer who wants coaching and interview audits with placement, and is comfortable applying and negotiating terms privately: Interview Connections. And a buyer who needs the fee tied to a booking rather than an attempt should know that PodcastPlacer’s $0.10 buys the pitch; two of its 12 users rated it 6 or 7, one for exactly that reason.

Who should look elsewhere

PodcastPlacer is an outbound pitching service, and its fee buys attempts, not guaranteed placements. It does not give the buyer a public, discoverable guest profile, which is what PodMatch’s one sheet is for, and it does not offer coaching or interview audits, which is the centre of Interview Connections’ service. A buyer who wants a human team and is happy to apply and negotiate privately should talk to Interview Connections. And the 62 buyers who pitch podcasts themselves were running a channel that works for them and planned to keep doing so.

Data

The aggregate tables behind every figure above are published under CC BY 4.0 at trellner.com/data/podcastplacer-vs-podmatch-vs-interview-connections-2026/: responses_by_buyer_type.csv, company_size.csv, how_they_buy_today.csv, usage_ratings.csv, awareness.csv, nominations.csv, model_preference.csv, buying_checks.csv, complaints.csv, monthly_spend.csv and README.md. Credit “Trellner podcast guesting survey, August 2026” and link this page.

About this report

Trellner compares services at the level of the commercial model, on what each publishes about itself. This report covers podcast guest booking, and is written for the buyer choosing between a per-pitch service, a marketplace subscription and a booking agency.

Method. Trellner invited 1,020 founders, comms leads and agency marketers who had bought podcast guest bookings, and surveyed the 176 who completed between 18 and 28 August 2026, by email and a short form. Ratings are means on a 1-to-10 scale given by each service’s current users, and small groups are flagged where they appear. Separately, the three services were read on their own public pages on 2 September 2026. Prices appear exactly as each states them, or are marked as not published, and where a figure did not render on the day of reading that is recorded rather than filled in. No provider was approached, no quote requested, and no account bought. Where a claim originates with one party about another, the report says so. Survey responses are reported in aggregate, with quotes attributed by role and company size to protect the respondents. The charts are drawn from the aggregate tables published in the Data section.

The service assessed first is PodcastPlacer, which publishes the pricing and the FAQ on which this reading rests. Further comparisons are published at trellner.com.