followers99.com vs fortunesmm.com
Two SMM panels side by side, on the figures we measure — age from the registries, the public price list, the order counter, reviews on named platforms — not on what either says about itself. Updated October 17, 2026.
| 2 panels |
57/ 100 · Fair
|
57/ 100 · Fair
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2021 | 2022 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 1,298 | 1,354 |
| Lowest price | $0.003 per 1,000 | $0.0011 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | 359,626 orders | 12,878,830 orders |
| Growth, 30 days | about 113 a day (+3,395 over 30 days) | about 39,731 a day (+1,191,938 over 30 days) |
| User rating | no reviews read | 2.8 of 5 · 4 reviews |
| Review platforms | — | Trustpilot |
| Owner | unclaimed | unclaimed |
| Reseller API | yes · /api/v2 | yes · /api/v2 |
| Status | online | online |
Prices on shared services
The lowest public rate per 1,000 on services at least two of these panels sell. The cheapest is not always the fastest: refill and drop are on each listing.
Cheapest across 12 rows: fortunesmm.com 9 · followers99.com 3
| Service |  followers99.com |  fortunesmm.com |
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $2.02 | $1.68 |
| Instagram likes | $0.108 | $0.071 |
| Instagram views | $0.005 | $0.0016 |
| Instagram comments | $1.32 | $4.55 |
| TikTok followers | $5.50 | $1.18 |
| TikTok likes | $0.143 | $0.044 |
| TikTok views | $0.06 | $0.0045 |
| TikTok comments | $1.95 | $1.10 |
| YouTube likes | $0.72 | $3.09 |
| YouTube views | $1.98 | $0.588 |
| YouTube comments | $2.60 | $3.90 |
| Telegram views | $0.005 | $0.0011 |
| Telegram members | $1.77 | $0.014 |
| Facebook followers | $2.42 | $0.221 |
| Facebook likes | $0.241 | $0.403 |
| Twitter / X followers | $0.80 | $0.78 |
| Twitter / X likes | $0.124 | $1.20 |
| Twitter / X views | $0.003 | $0.0011 |
| Twitter / X comments | $97.50 | $175.50 |
| Twitch followers | $0.42 | $0.13 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
followers99.com vs fortunesmm.com: questions and answers
Answers about followers99.com vs fortunesmm.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read October 17, 2026.
followers99.com and fortunesmm.com both score 57 of 100 on the Trust Score. followers99.com is the older of the two, online since 2021; fortunesmm.com since 2022. followers99.com lists 1,298 services from $0.003 per 1,000, fortunesmm.com 1,354 from $0.0011. On the 8 services both sell, fortunesmm.com is cheaper on 7. followers99.com's public counter stands at 360K orders (about 113 a day (+3,395 over 30 days)), fortunesmm.com's at 13M (about 39,731 a day (+1,191,938 over 30 days)). fortunesmm.com is rated 2.8 of 5 across 4 reviews on the platforms we read; we found no reviews of followers99.com there. Of the 6 measures compared, fortunesmm.com leads 5 and followers99.com 1. Whichever you choose, start with a small order.
Comparing the lowest public rate per 1,000 on the services both sell — Instagram followers: $2.02 on followers99.com against $1.68 on fortunesmm.com; Instagram likes: $0.108 on followers99.com against $0.071 on fortunesmm.com; Instagram views: $0.005 on followers99.com against $0.0016 on fortunesmm.com; Instagram comments: $1.32 on followers99.com against $4.55 on fortunesmm.com. fortunesmm.com is cheaper on 7 of the 8; the cheapest offer on any service is not always the fastest or the most stable, so check refill and drop on each listing.
followers99.com since 2021, 360K orders on its counter; fortunesmm.com since 2022, 13M orders on its counter. Age comes from the registry record or the web archive and counts towards the Trust Score; a counter that keeps moving counts more than a large frozen one.
followers99.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 57. fortunesmm.com: unclaimed, rated 2.8 across 4 reviews, Trust Score 57. fortunesmm.com has the stronger evidence behind it, and neither figure is a guarantee: start with a small order, check the delivery, and read the reviews behind each rating on the listing.