qualitypanel.org vs upupfollowers.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 15, 2026.
| 2 panels |
35/ 100 · Guarded
|
35/ 100 · Guarded
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2024 | 2018 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 2,829 | 201 |
| Lowest price | $0.0004 per 1,000 | $0.122 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | not shown | not shown |
| Growth, 30 days | — | — |
| User rating | 2.5 of 5 · 5 reviews | no reviews read |
| 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: qualitypanel.org 12
| Service |  qualitypanel.org |  upupfollowers.com |
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $0.233 | $11.75 |
| Instagram likes | $0.035 | $0.734 |
| Instagram views | $0.0004 | $0.159 |
| Instagram comments | $0.485 | $24.47 |
| Instagram shares | $0.0005 | $1.71 |
| TikTok followers | $0.563 | $11.01 |
| TikTok likes | $0.018 | $1.96 |
| TikTok views | $0.0029 | $0.122 |
| TikTok shares | $0.012 | $0.734 |
| YouTube likes | $0.126 | $7.34 |
| YouTube views | $0.166 | $2.45 |
| YouTube subscribers | $0.011 | $95.45 |
| YouTube comments | $2.44 | $48.70 |
| Telegram views | $0.0009 | $2.45 |
| Telegram members | $0.012 | $3.92 |
| Facebook followers | $0.102 | $9.79 |
| Facebook likes | $0.088 | $2.94 |
| Facebook views | $0.0049 | $0.489 |
| Facebook members | $0.195 | $12.24 |
| Facebook comments | $1.24 | $63.39 |
| Facebook shares | $0.014 | $9.55 |
| Twitter / X followers | $0.524 | $4.89 |
| Twitter / X likes | $0.504 | $6.12 |
| Threads likes | $0.485 | $13.46 |
| LinkedIn followers | $5.35 | $70.98 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
qualitypanel.org against…
qualitypanel.org vs upupfollowers.com: questions and answers
Answers about qualitypanel.org vs upupfollowers.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read October 15, 2026.
qualitypanel.org and upupfollowers.com both score 35 of 100 on the Trust Score. upupfollowers.com is the older of the two, online since 2018; qualitypanel.org since 2024. qualitypanel.org lists 2,829 services from $0.0004 per 1,000, upupfollowers.com 201 from $0.122. On the 8 services both sell, qualitypanel.org is cheaper on 8. qualitypanel.org is rated 2.5 of 5 across 5 reviews on the platforms we read; we found no reviews of upupfollowers.com there. Of the 4 measures compared, qualitypanel.org leads 3 and upupfollowers.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: $0.233 on qualitypanel.org against $11.75 on upupfollowers.com; Instagram likes: $0.035 on qualitypanel.org against $0.734 on upupfollowers.com; Instagram views: $0.0004 on qualitypanel.org against $0.159 on upupfollowers.com; Instagram comments: $0.485 on qualitypanel.org against $24.47 on upupfollowers.com. qualitypanel.org 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.
qualitypanel.org since 2024, no public counter; upupfollowers.com since 2018, 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.
qualitypanel.org: unclaimed, rated 2.5 across 5 reviews, Trust Score 35. upupfollowers.com: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 35. qualitypanel.org 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.