gurusmmpanels.com vs paotellars.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 22, 2026.
| 2 panels |
55/ 100 · Fair
|
55/ 100 · Fair
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2022 | 2023 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 261 | 1,930 |
| Lowest price | $0.0015 per 1,000 | $0.0016 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | 647,755 orders | 997,456 orders |
| Growth, 30 days | about 259 a day (+7,777 over 30 days) | about 762 a day (+22,871 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: paotellars.com 9 · gurusmmpanels.com 3
| Service | ||
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $4.33 | $0.403 |
| Instagram likes | $0.125 | $0.045 |
| Instagram views | $0.0022 | $0.0016 |
| Instagram members | $11.01 | $3.14 |
| Instagram comments | $0.728 | $11.98 |
| Instagram shares | $0.014 | $0.0022 |
| TikTok followers | $0.53 | $0.941 |
| TikTok likes | $0.312 | $0.126 |
| TikTok views | $0.041 | $0.0038 |
| YouTube likes | $0.439 | $0.311 |
| YouTube views | $0.54 | $0.356 |
| YouTube subscribers | $0.012 | $0.117 |
| YouTube comments | $4.10 | $2.49 |
| Facebook followers | $0.339 | $0.137 |
| Facebook likes | $0.339 | $0.107 |
| Facebook views | $0.048 | $0.023 |
| Facebook members | $0.414 | $0.29 |
| Facebook comments | $3.38 | $2.56 |
| Twitter / X followers | $28.43 | $2.37 |
| Twitter / X likes | $1.03 | $0.934 |
| Twitter / X views | $0.0015 | $0.009 |
| Twitter / X shares | $1.23 | $0.205 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
gurusmmpanels.com against…
gurusmmpanels.com vs paotellars.com: questions and answers
Answers about gurusmmpanels.com vs paotellars.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read October 22, 2026.
gurusmmpanels.com and paotellars.com both score 55 of 100 on the Trust Score. gurusmmpanels.com is the older of the two, online since 2022; paotellars.com since 2023. gurusmmpanels.com lists 261 services from $0.0015 per 1,000, paotellars.com 1,930 from $0.0016. On the 8 services both sell, paotellars.com is cheaper on 6. gurusmmpanels.com's public counter stands at 648K orders (about 259 a day (+7,777 over 30 days)), paotellars.com's at 997K (about 762 a day (+22,871 over 30 days)). Neither has reviews on the platforms we read. Of the 5 measures compared, paotellars.com leads 4 and gurusmmpanels.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: $4.33 on gurusmmpanels.com against $0.403 on paotellars.com; Instagram likes: $0.125 on gurusmmpanels.com against $0.045 on paotellars.com; Instagram views: $0.0022 on gurusmmpanels.com against $0.0016 on paotellars.com; Instagram members: $11.01 on gurusmmpanels.com against $3.14 on paotellars.com. paotellars.com is cheaper on 6 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.
gurusmmpanels.com since 2022, 648K orders on its counter; paotellars.com since 2023, 997K 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.
gurusmmpanels.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 55. paotellars.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 55. paotellars.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.