followersprovider.com vs paneliniz.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 November 8, 2026.
| 2 panels |
35/ 100 · Guarded
|
35/ 100 · Guarded
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2026 | 2020 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 1,068 | 1,619 |
| Lowest price | $0.0025 per 1,000 | $0.0018 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | 1,637,692 orders | not shown |
| Growth, 30 days | about 122 a day (+3,664 over 30 days) | — |
| User rating | no reviews read | no reviews read |
| Review platforms | — | — |
| 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: paneliniz.com 8 · followersprovider.com 4
| Service | ||
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $0.313 | $0.52 |
| Instagram likes | $0.098 | $0.101 |
| Instagram views | $0.0025 | $0.0032 |
| Instagram comments | $1.09 | $0.936 |
| Instagram shares | $0.017 | $0.034 |
| TikTok followers | $1.81 | $0.979 |
| TikTok likes | $0.272 | $0.176 |
| TikTok views | $0.0095 | $0.0064 |
| TikTok comments | $7.25 | $1.95 |
| TikTok shares | $0.168 | $0.124 |
| YouTube likes | $0.487 | $0.29 |
| YouTube views | $0.866 | $0.397 |
| YouTube subscribers | $20.00 | $5.40 |
| YouTube comments | $5.69 | $3.15 |
| Telegram views | $0.0089 | $0.0064 |
| Facebook followers | $0.228 | $0.39 |
| Facebook likes | $0.456 | $0.117 |
| Facebook views | $0.127 | $0.065 |
| Facebook comments | $45.05 | $5.20 |
| Twitter / X followers | $2.03 | $0.806 |
| Twitter / X likes | $4.69 | $0.715 |
| Twitter / X views | $0.005 | $0.003 |
| Spotify followers | $0.37 | $0.237 |
| Kick followers | $2.97 | $1.13 |
| Audiomack views | $0.487 | $7.86 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
followersprovider.com against…
followersprovider.com vs paneliniz.com: questions and answers
Answers about followersprovider.com vs paneliniz.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read November 8, 2026.
followersprovider.com and paneliniz.com both score 35 of 100 on the Trust Score. paneliniz.com is the older of the two, online since 2020; followersprovider.com since 2026. followersprovider.com lists 1,068 services from $0.0025 per 1,000, paneliniz.com 1,619 from $0.0018. On the 8 services both sell, neither is cheaper overall. followersprovider.com shows a public counter — 1.6M orders, about 122 a day (+3,664 over 30 days) — while paneliniz.com shows none. Neither has reviews on the platforms we read. The measures split evenly between the two — try a small order on each and compare the delivery.
Comparing the lowest public rate per 1,000 on the services both sell — Instagram followers: $0.313 on followersprovider.com against $0.52 on paneliniz.com; Instagram likes: $0.098 on followersprovider.com against $0.101 on paneliniz.com; Instagram views: $0.0025 on followersprovider.com against $0.0032 on paneliniz.com; Instagram comments: $1.09 on followersprovider.com against $0.936 on paneliniz.com. Neither is cheaper overall; the cheapest offer on any service is not always the fastest or the most stable, so check refill and drop on each listing.
followersprovider.com since 2026, 1.6M orders on its counter; paneliniz.com since 2020, no public 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.
followersprovider.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 35. paneliniz.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 35. The evidence is even, and neither figure is a guarantee: start with a small order, check the delivery, and read the reviews behind each rating on the listing.