jay-like.com vs smmcoder.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 4, 2026.
| 2 panels |
46/ 100 · Fair
|
46/ 100 · Fair
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2019 | 2023 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 350 | 5,661 |
| Lowest price | $0.298 per 1,000 | $0.0005 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | 126,231 orders | 93,676,649 orders |
| Growth, 30 days | about 40 a day (+1,127 over 28 days) | about 136,433 a day (+4,092,995 over 30 days) |
| User rating | 3.0 of 5 · 1 reviews | 4.5 of 5 · 19 reviews |
| Review platforms | Trustpilot | Trustpilot, Sitejabber |
| 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: smmcoder.com 12
| Service |  jay-like.com |  smmcoder.com |
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $4.17 | $0.207 |
| Instagram likes | $2.09 | $0.033 |
| Instagram views | $1.19 | $0.0006 |
| Instagram comments | $238.35 | $0.40 |
| TikTok likes | $0.745 | $0.045 |
| TikTok views | $0.298 | $0.0026 |
| TikTok comments | $4.47 | $0.65 |
| TikTok shares | $0.894 | $0.013 |
| YouTube likes | $4.77 | $0.13 |
| YouTube views | $2.09 | $0.13 |
| YouTube subscribers | $29.79 | $0.011 |
| YouTube comments | $11.92 | $0.99 |
| Telegram views | $0.894 | $0.0015 |
| Telegram members | $1.19 | $0.012 |
| Facebook followers | $2.09 | $0.096 |
| Facebook likes | $0.894 | $0.072 |
| Facebook views | $1.19 | $0.005 |
| Facebook members | $2.98 | $0.20 |
| Facebook comments | $238.35 | $1.28 |
| Facebook shares | $1.19 | $0.09 |
| Twitter / X followers | $89.38 | $0.54 |
| Twitter / X likes | $4.17 | $0.52 |
| Twitter / X views | $0.894 | $0.0009 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
jay-like.com vs smmcoder.com: questions and answers
Answers about jay-like.com vs smmcoder.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read October 4, 2026.
jay-like.com and smmcoder.com both score 46 of 100 on the Trust Score. jay-like.com is the older of the two, online since 2019; smmcoder.com since 2023. jay-like.com lists 350 services from $0.298 per 1,000, smmcoder.com 5,661 from $0.0005. On the 8 services both sell, smmcoder.com is cheaper on 8. jay-like.com's public counter stands at 126K orders (about 40 a day (+1,127 over 28 days)), smmcoder.com's at 94M (about 136,433 a day (+4,092,995 over 30 days)). Users rate jay-like.com 3.0 of 5 across 1 reviews, smmcoder.com 4.5 across 19. Of the 6 measures compared, smmcoder.com leads 5 and jay-like.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: $4.17 on jay-like.com against $0.207 on smmcoder.com; Instagram likes: $2.09 on jay-like.com against $0.033 on smmcoder.com; Instagram views: $1.19 on jay-like.com against $0.0006 on smmcoder.com; Instagram comments: $238.35 on jay-like.com against $0.40 on smmcoder.com. smmcoder.com is cheaper on 8 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.
jay-like.com since 2019, 126K orders on its counter; smmcoder.com since 2023, 94M 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.
jay-like.com: unclaimed, rated 3.0 across 1 reviews, Trust Score 46. smmcoder.com: unclaimed, rated 4.5 across 19 reviews, Trust Score 46. smmcoder.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.