smmsky.net vs youtubemarketingwizards.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 25, 2026.
| 2 panels |
35/ 100 · Guarded
|
49/ 100 · Fair
|
|---|---|---|
| Online since | 2019 | 2019 |
| Engine | Perfect Panel | Perfect Panel |
| Services listed | 2,346 | 4,435 |
| Lowest price | $0.003 per 1,000 | $0.01 per 1,000 |
| Order counter | not shown | not shown |
| Growth, 30 days | — | — |
| User rating | no reviews read | 3.7 of 5 · 1 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: youtubemarketingwizards.com 7 · smmsky.net 5
| Service |  smmsky.net |  youtubemarketingwizards.com |
|---|---|---|
| Instagram followers | $0.604 | $0.31 |
| Instagram likes | $0.124 | $0.11 |
| Instagram views | $0.003 | $0.01 |
| Instagram comments | $0.899 | $1.05 |
| Instagram shares | $0.003 | $0.02 |
| TikTok followers | $1.60 | $1.75 |
| TikTok likes | $0.293 | $0.25 |
| TikTok views | $0.0075 | $0.01 |
| TikTok comments | $1.31 | $0.35 |
| YouTube likes | $0.802 | $0.53 |
| YouTube views | $0.609 | $0.36 |
| Telegram views | $0.013 | $0.01 |
| Telegram members | $0.016 | $0.17 |
| Facebook followers | $0.254 | $0.24 |
| Facebook likes | $0.184 | $0.18 |
| Facebook views | $0.039 | $0.04 |
| Facebook comments | $0.604 | $2.96 |
| Facebook shares | $0.975 | $1.56 |
| Twitter / X followers | $1.64 | $0.53 |
| Twitter / X likes | $1.80 | $0.39 |
| Twitter / X views | $0.003 | $0.01 |
| Spotify followers | $0.497 | $0.30 |
| Spotify views | $0.263 | $0.18 |
| Audiomack views | $2.60 | $0.27 |
| WhatsApp members | $0.404 | $8.75 |
Other comparisons
The nearest panels on the Trust Score to each side, online today.
smmsky.net against…
smmsky.net vs youtubemarketingwizards.com: questions and answers
Answers about smmsky.net vs youtubemarketingwizards.com from what we measured: the order counter, the price list, the registries and the review platforms. Facts last read October 25, 2026.
youtubemarketingwizards.com scores 49 of 100 on the Trust Score, smmsky.net 35 — a 14-point gap. Both have been online since 2019. smmsky.net lists 2,346 services from $0.003 per 1,000, youtubemarketingwizards.com 4,435 from $0.01. On the 8 services both sell, smmsky.net is cheaper on 5. youtubemarketingwizards.com is rated 3.7 of 5 across 1 reviews on the platforms we read; we found no reviews of smmsky.net there. Of the 4 measures compared, youtubemarketingwizards.com leads 3 and smmsky.net 1. Whichever you choose, start with a small order.
Comparing the lowest public rate per 1,000 on the services both sell — Instagram followers: $0.604 on smmsky.net against $0.31 on youtubemarketingwizards.com; Instagram likes: $0.124 on smmsky.net against $0.11 on youtubemarketingwizards.com; Instagram views: $0.003 on smmsky.net against $0.01 on youtubemarketingwizards.com; Instagram comments: $0.899 on smmsky.net against $1.05 on youtubemarketingwizards.com. smmsky.net is cheaper on 5 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.
smmsky.net since 2019, no public counter; youtubemarketingwizards.com since 2019, 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.
smmsky.net: unclaimed, no reviews read, Trust Score 35. youtubemarketingwizards.com: unclaimed, rated 3.7 across 1 reviews, Trust Score 49. youtubemarketingwizards.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.