Advertising Disclosure & Editorial Independence

The short version

WhichVoIP is an independent comparison platform for business telecoms in South Africa. Our reviews, comparisons, and recommendations are based on hands-on research, verified data, and customer-feedback synthesis. We earn revenue through sponsored partnerships and matched-quote referrals — both disclosed everywhere they apply. Sponsorship does not influence our ratings, verdicts, or editorial conclusions. Sponsored and non-sponsored providers are evaluated using the same rubric, the same evidence bar, and the same publishable lint discipline.

How we make money

WhichVoIP is owned and operated by Telecoms Media Group (Pty) Ltd. Our revenue comes from three sources, in this order of significance:

1. Referral fees on matched quotes

When a buyer requests quotes through one of our category-specific quote forms (VoIP, Cloud PBX, fibre, wireless, call centre), we route the request to providers in our directory whose offering matches the buyer’s stated needs. If the buyer signs up with one of those matched providers, we receive a referral fee. This is the primary revenue stream — it’s how we keep WhichVoIP free for buyers.

2. Sponsored partnerships

A small number of providers in our directory pay for a sponsored partnership. This is disclosed everywhere it applies — sponsored providers carry a visible “Sponsored Partner” badge on their directory listing, and the disclosure paragraph at the foot of every sponsored review names the relationship explicitly.

Sponsorship pays for two specific things: (a) a disclosed badge on the provider’s directory listing, and (b) placement priority on our quote-matching form when the buyer’s stated needs match the sponsor’s offering.

Sponsorship does not pay for editorial scoring, verdict positioning, content placement in reviews, favourable framing, exclusion of negative findings, removal of competitor mentions, or any other editorial concession.

3. Industry advertising

WhichVoIP occasionally runs display advertising or sponsored content from telecoms vendors — always clearly labelled as advertising, and physically separated from editorial review content. We do not run native advertising designed to look like editorial.

Current sponsored partners

This list is current as of July 2026 and is updated on this page when it changes:

• Switch Telecom (reviewed)
• Centracom (reviewed)
• TRUENAV (reviewed)
• Intellicomms (reviewed)
• Kinetix Connect (reviewed)
• JAC Telecoms (review pending)

Each reviewed sponsor’s review carries the full sponsorship disclosure paragraph at the page foot, naming the commercial relationship and reaffirming the editorial boundary.

The sponsorship boundary — what sponsorship buys, and what it doesn’t

This is the most important section on the page. If you’re trying to evaluate whether WhichVoIP’s editorial assessment is biased by commercial interests, this is what you should read.

What sponsorship buys

• A disclosed badge on the provider’s directory listing — visible to every buyer, labelled “Sponsored Partner”.
• Placement priority on our quote-matching form. When a buyer’s stated needs match a sponsor’s offering, the sponsor appears earlier in the matched-providers list. This is disclosed when it applies.
• Logo placement on our homepage and category pages where applicable, always visually distinct from editorial content.

What sponsorship does NOT buy

• A higher score on any of the five rating dimensions.
• A higher headline score.
• Removal of negative findings, complaint patterns, or “Think Twice” rows in the review.
• Exclusion of competitor names from “Best For / Think Twice” alternatives — sponsored reviews must name competitors as alternatives the same way every other review does.
• Favourable framing in the verdict, the Bottom Line, or the Editorial Read.
• Permission to review or pre-approve content before publication.
• Permission to influence which questions appear in the FAQ section.
• Higher placement in the Related Reviews cross-link block on a non-sponsored provider’s review.

If a sponsored partner ever scored higher than the rubric supported, the rubric is the source of truth — not the sponsorship. The maths discipline is enforced by our pre-publish lint, and every score is justified with named evidence in the review’s methodology section. Read the scoring methodology below →

Our editorial standards

Every review and comparison on WhichVoIP follows these principles:

• Accuracy first — Pricing, features, and licensing data are sourced directly from provider websites and verified before publication. Every cited price is checked against our cross-corpus pricing canonical.
• Neutral language — We describe differences between providers without framing any provider as inferior or superior by default. Promotional adjective stacks (“robust”, “comprehensive”, “industry-leading”) are flagged by our editorial lint and removed.
• Balanced alternatives — Every “Think Twice” row that steers buyers away from a provider must name a specific alternative, including on sponsored reviews. Recommendation sections always include at least one non-sponsored provider alongside any sponsored partners.
• Verified customer ratings — Review platform scores (Google Business, HelloPeter) are checked directly on each platform and include verification dates.
• ICASA licensing accuracy — We report licence types factually. An ECS licence is appropriate for cloud VoIP providers; we do not present it as inferior to dual ECS+ECNS licensing.
• Verifiable customer-quote patterns — Customer quote cards are aggregated patterns drawn from 4–8 underlying public reviews per card, with persona-anonymised attribution and a “Verify on” link to the source platform.

Sources we use

WhichVoIP reviews are based on independent research using publicly available information. Every review’s disclosure paragraph names the specific sources used, with a verification date. The canonical four sources we use across every review:

• The provider’s public website — pricing pages, product pages, terms and conditions, partner programs.
• HelloPeter — South African consumer-review platform, used for sentiment patterns and complaint resolution.
• Google Business Profile / Google Reviews — used for sentiment patterns, review volume, and provider responses.
• ICASA’s licensee register — used to verify licence type (IECS / IECNS) and licence status.

Where review content references a specific source — a customer-quote pattern, a regulatory fact, a price citation — the source is linked from the review so readers can validate the claim independently.

Our scoring methodology

Every WhichVoIP review’s headline score is a weighted sum of five dimensions, each capped at 10.0. The same rubric and evidence bar applies to every provider, sponsored or not.

The five dimensions and their weights

The headline score formula

score = 0.25 × Pricing Value
      + 0.25 × Feature Set
      + 0.20 × Customer Reviews
      + 0.15 × Reliability & Uptime
      + 0.15 × Support Quality

Result rounded to one decimal place. Score range used in published reviews: 6.0 to 9.4. Anything below 6.0 means the provider shouldn’t be in our corpus; anything 9.5+ reads as paid even when it isn’t.

What each dimension’s score means

Every score above 7.0 must point to specific verifiable evidence in the body of the review. We don’t score by feel.

Pricing Value (25%)

• 9.0–10.0 — Entry tier 25%+ below SA category median, or effective per-extension/per-user 30%+ below median at typical SME headcount. Transparent pricing pages. No hidden setup or porting fees. Month-to-month contracts available.
• 7.0–8.9 — At or below category median. Pricing transparency wins (clear per-extension, no hidden setup, flexible contracts).
• 5.0–6.9 — At category median. No structural advantage. Average contract terms.
• 3.0–4.9 — Above-market. Quote-only without justification. Hidden setup fees. Inflexible contracts.
• Below 3.0 — Predatory or hostile pricing. We don’t publish reviews of providers scoring this low.

Feature Set (25%)

• 9.0–10.0 — Full Cloud PBX/UCaaS surface plus at least 2 standout integrations (CRM, Microsoft 365, contact-centre add-on path). Solid mobile and desktop apps. Full SA number range support.
• 7.0–8.9 — Standard surface plus 1 standout (CRM integration, contact-centre, or call recording included). Functional mobile app.
• 5.0–6.9 — Basic Cloud PBX features. Limited integrations. App present but not best-in-class.
• 3.0–4.9 — Missing core features (no app, no CRM, no IVR, no recording) or core features charged as add-ons.
• Below 3.0 — Bare-bones SIP only with no UCaaS layer.

Customer Reviews (20%)

• 9.0–10.0 — Google Reviews 4.7+ AND HelloPeter 9+ AND 50+ reviews on each platform. Provider responses to negatives are professional and factual.
• 7.0–8.9 — Google 4.5+ AND HelloPeter 7+ AND 25+ reviews on each. Most negative reviews show provider attempting resolution.
• 5.0–6.9 — Google 4.0–4.4 OR HelloPeter 5.0–6.9. Limited review volume. Mixed sentiment.
• 3.0–4.9 — Google below 4.0 OR HelloPeter below 5.0 OR no platform presence. Pattern of unresolved negative reviews.
• Below 3.0 — Active hostility in customer reviews; provider absent from public review platforms entirely.

We read 15–20 of the most recent reviews on each platform before scoring this dimension — the pattern matters as much as the average star rating.

Reliability & Uptime (15%)

• 9.0–10.0 — Owns ICASA-licensed network (IECNS) or runs on Tier-1 cloud (Microsoft, Twilio, AWS Connect). Published uptime 99.9%+. Multiple SA PoPs. Clear DR/failover.
• 7.0–8.9 — Owns or has full control of switching infrastructure even when reselling termination. Solid uptime track record. SA-hosted infrastructure.
• 5.0–6.9 — Resells major SA networks. Reasonable uptime claims. No significant published outages.
• 3.0–4.9 — Resells at thin margin without infrastructure control. Public outages with poor communication.
• Below 3.0 — Documented major outages without resolution. No infrastructure control.

Support Quality (15%)

• 9.0–10.0 — SA-based 24/7 support. Named account manager included. Documented 1-hour response SLA. Customer reviews specifically praise support speed and resolution.
• 7.0–8.9 — SA-based business-hours support. Email response within 4 hours. Good support sentiment in customer reviews.
• 5.0–6.9 — Standard email/ticket support. Response within business day. Mixed support sentiment.
• 3.0–4.9 — Slow response. Tier-1 support outsourced offshore. Negative support patterns in customer reviews.
• Below 3.0 — Documented support failures. No clear escalation path.

Quarterly audit schedule

Telecoms pricing and product surfaces move. A score that was accurate in March may not be accurate in June. WhichVoIP conducts quarterly audits of all published reviews to ensure pricing, ratings, and factual claims remain current.

The next scheduled audit dates:

• Q2 2026: June 2026
• Q3 2026: September 2026
• Q4 2026: December 2026
• Q1 2027: March 2027

Each audit checks every published review’s pricing, customer-review aggregate stats, support patterns, and infrastructure changes. If any dimension shifts by ≥1.0 point, the review’s score and methodology paragraph are updated, and the headline score is re-derived from the weighted sum.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure

We disclose relationships and conflicts that could reasonably affect editorial judgement:

• Sponsored partners are disclosed on every applicable surface (badge, review disclosure paragraph, the list above).
• Equity or ownership in any reviewed provider would be disclosed in the same review’s disclosure paragraph and on this page. As of June 2026, Telecoms Media Group has no equity, board representation, or ownership relationship with any provider in our directory.
• Editorial team conflicts — if a member of the editorial team has a personal relationship (employment history, family, financial interest) with a reviewed provider, they recuse themselves from that review and the recusal is noted in the review’s disclosure paragraph.

Corrections policy & how to flag a concern

The honest-broker positioning only works if readers can hold us to it. If you spot something in a WhichVoIP review that looks like commercial bias, factual error, or sponsorship contamination, tell us:

• How: Use our contact form
• What to include: The review URL and the specific concern (e.g. “Wanatel review — score doesn’t match rubric”)
• Response time: 5 business days. Substantive concerns get an investigation; lazy claims get a citation of the relevant evidence in the review.

If we made a mistake, we correct the review and note the correction. If we disagree, we explain why and you decide what to do with that.

Editorial accountability point: Mechelle Gindra, Editorial Lead.

General disclosure

The offers that appear on our website are from companies that we have a marketing relationship with. Mentions of any Company or Service on our website does not imply endorsement of said Company or Service. If you choose to click on any links on our website, we may receive compensation. It is completely at your discretion whether to click on any links on our website.

By using our website, you acknowledge and agree to our advertising disclosure.

Have questions about how we work? Our FAQ page covers how we review providers, how we make money, and what WhichVoIP is (and isn’t).

Last reviewed: June 2026. This page is updated whenever (a) the sponsored partner list changes, (b) the revenue model changes, or (c) the editorial process changes materially.