Claude vs GitHub Copilot: Which AI Tool Should You Choose?

QA v1.0 — 2026-05-23 KST. content_status = qa_passed. Generated from templates/comparison-page-template.md and promoted after a Section B walk-through of qa/adsense-seo-quality-gate.md. Meta description (≤ 155 chars): Claude is a general-purpose AI assistant; GitHub Copilot is an IDE-integrated coding assistant — here is the situation-by-situation choice.

Quick recommendation

• Choose Claude if: your daily work is reasoning-heavy reading and writing — long PDFs, contracts, analytical memos, research summaries, structured arguments — with coding as one task among many rather than your full job, and you want a careful, instructable chat assistant plus a developer API.
• Choose GitHub Copilot if: you are a working developer or sit on an engineering team whose repos and review process already live on GitHub, and you want AI completion, chat, and pull-request assistance to appear inside the IDE and code host you already use.
• Consider another option if: you want an AI-first editor built around codebase chat and multi-file edits (look at Cursor), a self-hosted or private-model coding assistant for license-sensitive work (look at Tabnine), or a browser-based prototyping environment (look at Replit AI).
• Last verified: 2026-05-23 KST. Underlying source reads: claude.com/pricing and github.com/features/copilot/plans on 2026-05-22 KST.

Source-freshness note (2026-07-25): a Claude model inside GitHub Copilot is not the Claude product

Since this page was first verified in May 2026, one launch has changed how the "Claude vs GitHub Copilot" question reads for real buyers: on July 24, 2026, Anthropic announced Claude Opus 5, and GitHub's official changelog announced on the same day that Claude Opus 5 is gradually rolling out inside GitHub Copilot (GitHub changelog entry, read HTTP 200 on 2026-07-25 KST; Anthropic launch post, read HTTP 200 on 2026-07-25 KST). That makes a new buyer question durable enough to answer here: if you can select Claude Opus 5 inside GitHub Copilot, does that replace a Claude subscription, Claude Code, or Claude API access? The conservative answer — and the one this page stands behind — is no. Choosing a model provider inside a host product is not the same as buying that provider's own product, and the rest of this note explains exactly what changed, what did not, and what to verify before you act on either.

Claude-in-Copilot boundary check (2026-07-25). What GitHub's changelog says (vendor facts, no numbers repeated here): per the 2026-07-25 KST read of the official entry, Claude Opus 5 is gradually rolling out in GitHub Copilot and is selectable across VS Code, Visual Studio, the Copilot CLI, the GitHub Copilot cloud agent, the Copilot app, github.com, GitHub Mobile, JetBrains, Xcode, and Eclipse. GitHub states eligibility includes Copilot Pro+, Max, Business, and Enterprise — notably not the Free or plain Pro tiers this page's comparison table quotes from the 2026-05-22 pricing read. For organizations, GitHub states that Copilot Business and Enterprise administrators must enable the Claude Opus 5 policy before users in the org can select the model. On cost, GitHub describes provider-list-price usage-based billing and routes buyers to its own Copilot pricing and model-request documentation — this page intentionally quotes no price, multiplier, or quota from that entry, and any GitHub performance/efficiency framing of the model is vendor positioning we do not repeat as fact.

What Anthropic's launch post says (availability facts only). Anthropic launched Claude Opus 5 on July 24, 2026, and the post describes it as available through Anthropic's own Claude product and model surfaces. Anthropic's post also publishes benchmark, performance, safety, efficiency, and pricing claims about the new model; those are vendor claims about a brand-new release and are deliberately not repeated on this page. The point that matters here is narrower: Anthropic's own Claude surfaces — the consumer chat product, Claude Code, and the developer API this page already describes — continue to be Anthropic's to sell and support, entirely separate from whatever GitHub does with the model inside Copilot.

The model-vs-host boundary, stated plainly. When you select Claude Opus 5 inside GitHub Copilot, the host product is still GitHub Copilot: the seat is a Copilot entitlement, the admin policy is a GitHub policy, the billing meter is GitHub's usage-based billing, and the data-handling, retention, and governance terms that apply to your prompts and code are the host product's terms for that SKU. What Anthropic supplies in that arrangement is the model. Nothing in either official post says a Copilot seat grants access to claude.ai, Claude Code, or the Claude developer API — and nothing says a Claude subscription grants access to Copilot. The two procurement lines this page has always described remain separate; the July 24 launch changes which model Copilot can host on eligible plans, not who sells you which product.

What changes and what does not, by buyer type:

• Individual Copilot users: you may see a new Claude Opus 5 option in the Copilot model picker on the listed surfaces, subject to the gradual rollout and to your plan being Pro+ or above — availability in your client today, on your plan, is not guaranteed by the announcement alone. Your Copilot plan, its terms, and its billing remain the frame; if the model is billed under usage-based billing, that shows up on the Copilot side, not as an Anthropic purchase. Nothing about your need (or lack of need) for a separate Claude subscription changes.
• Copilot Business/Enterprise buyers: users in your org cannot select the model until an administrator enables the Claude Opus 5 policy, so "is it enabled for us?" is an org-policy question before it is a product question. Usage-based billing exposure is an admin/procurement decision to review against GitHub's current pricing and model documentation.
• Claude product buyers (chat, Claude Code, or API): nothing in these announcements changes what the Claude product is or where it lives. Those surfaces remain Anthropic-side products with Anthropic-side entitlements — Copilot hosting a Claude model is not a substitute for any of them, and this page's core framing (two separate purchase decisions, sized to different jobs) is unchanged.

Buyer verification checklist before acting on this launch:

1. Rollout visibility: confirm Claude Opus 5 actually appears in the model picker of your client/surface today — the rollout is described as gradual, so absence now is not an error. 2. Plan eligibility: confirm your Copilot plan is Pro+, Max, Business, or Enterprise — GitHub's entry does not list Free or plain Pro as eligible tiers. 3. Admin policy: on Copilot Business/Enterprise, confirm whether your admins have enabled (or will enable) the Claude Opus 5 policy; without it, org users cannot select the model. 4. Billing mode: read GitHub's current Copilot pricing and model-request documentation for how provider list pricing under usage-based billing applies to your plan before enabling it broadly; this page quotes no figures. 5. Host-product terms: review the data-handling, retention, and governance terms of the host product (your Copilot SKU) — that is the contract that governs your prompts and code when a Claude model runs inside Copilot, and it is separate from Anthropic's own claude.ai, Claude Code, or API terms. 6. Side-by-side trial: evaluate the model on your own repository and tasks against the models you already use in Copilot and against Claude's own surfaces, and treat every vendor performance or efficiency claim as unverified marketing until your own trial says otherwise.

This note asserts only availability/rollout/eligibility/policy/billing-mode facts visible in the two official posts on 2026-07-25 KST. No benchmark number, price figure, quota, superiority, safety, or performance claim is repeated from either vendor, and no plan entitlement is asserted beyond the official source text. Volatile specifics — current model lineup per plan, prices, and rollout status — change quickly; verify on GitHub's and Anthropic's official pages before any commitment.

Short answer

Claude and GitHub Copilot are both regularly tagged as "AI for developers", but they answer different procurement questions. Claude is Anthropic's general-purpose conversational AI, sold as a freemium consumer chat product and a separate metered developer API; Anthropic positions it around careful reasoning, long-context comprehension, and instructable behavior. GitHub Copilot is GitHub's AI pair-programming assistant, sold to individual developers and to engineering organizations; it lives primarily inside supported IDEs (VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, Neovim, Xcode, Zed, Eclipse, and others enumerated on the official plans page) and inside GitHub itself, where it offers chat, completion, agent-mode features, pull-request assistance, and a CLI.

That difference is most of the decision. If your job is reading, writing, analyzing, and occasionally coding, Claude is on the table and Copilot is not — Copilot has no real "general writing assistant" surface. If your job is shipping code in an IDE, on GitHub, every day, Copilot is on the table; the Claude product — chat, Claude Code, and the developer API — can absolutely help you reason about code and explain a design, but it does not put suggestions into your editor or PR. That stays true even though eligible Copilot plans can now select a Claude model in Copilot's own picker — that is Copilot's in-editor surface running a Claude model under GitHub's terms, not the Claude product gaining an in-editor surface; see the "Source-freshness note (2026-07-25)" above.

A pricing caveat applies on both sides. Claude's plan names and prices were read from claude.com/pricing on 2026-05-22 KST: Free at $0, Pro at $20/month billed monthly or $17/month with annual billing, Max 5x and Max 20x both starting from $100/month for higher usage allowance, plus a separate developer API surface whose per-model token rates were not in scope of that fetch. GitHub Copilot's plan structure was read from github.com/features/copilot/plans on 2026-05-22 KST: Free at $0 (50 agent/chat requests and 2,000 completions per month, with access to a listed model set including Haiku 4.5 and GPT-5 mini, plus Copilot CLI, no credit card required), Pro at $10/user/month, Pro+ at $39/user/month, and Business and Enterprise listed with Contact Sales pricing in the section read. Both vendors have changed plans, quotas, and model lineups multiple times across releases; reconfirm before any pricing-sensitive commitment.

Comparison table

Use-case based choice

For writing and editing

For long-form, structured writing — analytical memos, technical explanations, research summaries, contract or policy review, code reviews framed as written deliverables — Claude is the obvious fit between these two. The product is positioned for long-context comprehension and instructable behavior, the consumer Free and Pro tiers are priced to make a single writer's experiment cheap, and the product surface is a general-purpose chat plus document upload — not an editor extension. GitHub Copilot is not built for this job. Its writing-adjacent surface is comments, commit messages, PR descriptions, and code-explanation prose, not standalone essays, memos, or external documents.

If your job mixes writing and code — for example a developer who also drafts design docs, runbooks, or RFCs — many engineers run a stack of "Copilot in the IDE for code, Claude in a browser tab for the surrounding writing" rather than picking one. The two products do not really overlap on the writing surface, so the cost stack adds rather than duplicates.

For coding and technical work

This is where the comparison is real, and the right answer depends on what kind of coding you do.

GitHub Copilot is the only one of the two that puts suggestions directly inside your editor as you type. The free tier alone provides 50 agent/chat requests and 2,000 completions per month, with access to a listed model set (the plans page enumerates Haiku 4.5, GPT-5 mini, and others) and the Copilot CLI. Pro at $10/user/month and Pro+ at $39/user/month layer on broader model access and higher quotas. Copilot's wide IDE coverage — VS Code, Visual Studio, Xcode, JetBrains IDEs, Neovim, Eclipse, Raycast, SQL Server Management Studio, and Zed, with Vim and Azure Data Studio also referenced in supporting text — means most working developers do not need to change editor to adopt it. The GitHub-side surfaces (PR assistance, code-review aids) are unique: a chat-only assistant cannot wrap the repo, PR, and review object graph the way Copilot can.

Claude is also pitched for developer workflows — Anthropic publicly markets coding as a Claude use case and provides a developer API — but the surface is conversational. Claude is excellent for explaining unfamiliar code, walking through a refactor, generating boilerplate to paste, reasoning about a bug with a long stack trace, or thinking through an architecture decision. It is also the natural choice if you want to build your own coding tool against a model API rather than adopt a vendor's IDE plugin.

The honest split:

• If you write and ship code in an IDE every day and your team's repos live on GitHub, Copilot is the default.
• If you write code occasionally inside a broader knowledge-work job, Claude is enough — and saves you the $10–$39/user/month per-developer Copilot bill.
• If your single most important constraint is "the assistant lives inside my editor, today, on a free tier", Copilot has the cheapest entry — its Free tier requires no credit card.
• If you need an API to build your own tools or workflows, the Claude developer API is one of the natural starting points; the per-token rates were not in scope of the 2026-05-22 fetch and should be read directly.

None of this is a benchmark claim. Coding quality varies across languages, tasks, model versions, and prompt shapes, and both products' underlying model lineups change frequently. Treat any "X is better at code than Y" headline as out-of-date by the time you read it; do your own evaluation on the work you actually ship.

For research and fact-checking

Neither tool is a citation-first research engine. Claude can read and summarize a long document you give it and reason across what is in that document, but it is still a generative model and will hallucinate when input is sparse, dated, or contradictory. GitHub Copilot is even less suited to general research: its surface is code completion, code chat, agent-mode coding features, and PR assistance, not multi-source research with inline citations.

For code-specific "research" — understanding a function, recovering the intent of an unfamiliar codebase, mapping a dependency, generating a test scaffold — Copilot in the IDE and Claude in a chat tab are both reasonable, and many developers use both depending on whether the question is local (Copilot) or broad and explanatory (Claude). For general fact-finding about the world, look at a dedicated AI answer engine; neither of these two is the right shopper for that job. Either tool's generated claims need to be verified against a primary source before they ship in a document or a code comment.

For teams or businesses

The team buying decisions split cleanly because the two products solve different problems.

• Claude for teams is reached through the consumer Pro and Max tiers and the separate developer API. The 2026-05-22 page-body read of claude.com/pricing showed Pro at $20/month (monthly billing) or $17/month (annual billing), and the two Max tiers — Max 5x and Max 20x — both "From $100/month" for higher usage allowance. Team, enterprise, SSO, and data-handling specifics belong on Anthropic's own team/enterprise pages, not on this comparison; per-model API token rates were not in scope of the 2026-05-22 fetch and should be read directly on the API pricing page.
• GitHub Copilot for teams is the product's natural buyer. Pro at $10/user/month and Pro+ at $39/user/month are the public per-user prices as of 2026-05-22; Business and Enterprise tiers are listed on the same plans page, with dollar amounts that were not visible in the section read and that the page treats as Contact Sales. Business and Enterprise are where seat management, admin controls, and enterprise data-handling commitments live; verify the specifics with GitHub before adopting at scale.

For a writing- or analysis-heavy team, Claude Pro at $20/seat/month is the obvious starting point and Copilot is not really a fit. For a team whose job is shipping code on GitHub, Copilot Pro at $10/user/month is dramatically cheaper than Claude Pro for the in-editor experience and is the obvious starting point. Many engineering teams end up paying for both: Copilot for in-IDE work, Claude (or another general assistant) for design docs and analysis.

Admin/SSO availability, data-handling for AI inputs and outputs, code-snippet retention policy per tier, IDE feature parity, and regional plan availability should all be confirmed on each vendor's official docs before procurement. Treat each vendor's published policy as the only authoritative source on what is and is not used for model training or improvement.

Pricing and plan caveats

• Claude: the page-body read of claude.com/pricing on 2026-05-22 KST showed Free at $0 for everyone, Pro at $20/month billed monthly or $17/month with annual billing, Max 5x and Max 20x both "From $100/month" for higher usage allowance, and a separate developer API surface. Specific message limits, per-model availability, team/enterprise seat pricing, and API per-token rates were not in scope of that fetch and should be read directly from the relevant pages.
• GitHub Copilot: the page-body read of github.com/features/copilot/plans on 2026-05-22 KST showed Free at $0 with 50 agent/chat requests and 2,000 completions per month, access to a listed model set (Haiku 4.5, GPT-5 mini, and others), Copilot CLI, no credit card required; Pro at $10/user/month; Pro+ at $39/user/month; and Business and Enterprise on Contact Sales pricing. Business/Enterprise dollar amounts and region-specific pricing were not in scope of that fetch.

Both vendors have moved features and quotas between releases. Treat the numbers above as recent (May 2026) reference points, not as long-term guarantees. Re-verify before quoting either page in a high-stakes decision.

Alternatives to consider

• Cursor — fits when you want an AI-first editor (a VS Code fork built around AI workflows, multi-file edits, and codebase chat) rather than an extension layered on a general editor.
• Tabnine — fits when your organization requires self-hosted or private-model deployments, or strict enterprise data isolation, and a public-API coding assistant is incompatible with your data-handling posture.
• Replit AI — fits when the dev environment lives in the browser — education, hobbyist projects, quick prototypes — and you want AI inside that environment rather than inside a desktop IDE.
• ChatGPT — fits when you want the largest mainstream ecosystem of plugins, custom GPTs, and third-party tools alongside a general-purpose assistant, with coding as one of several tasks.

Buyer control and the review boundary

<!-- claude-vs-github-copilot-review-boundary-2026-06-29 --> A useful way to frame this buying decision is to ask where each tool sits relative to the work you are responsible for, and where the human review boundary falls — the point at which a generated suggestion stops being a draft and becomes something with consequences. The two products put that boundary in different places because they touch different surfaces. Claude meets you in chat, in uploaded documents, through its developer API, and through Claude Code's working context; its output lands as text, explanation, or generated code that you read, copy, and place yourself. GitHub Copilot meets you inside the IDE, the repository, the pull request, and the broader GitHub workspace; its output lands as inline completions, edits, and PR-adjacent assistance positioned next to the code and review objects you already own.

Those surfaces map onto control boundaries you can reason about before you buy. With Claude, the relevant boundaries are your account and, for team use, your workspace and API project — the assistant proposes, and nothing it writes enters a document, a codebase, or a decision until you move it there. With Copilot, the boundaries are the IDE session, the repository, and the workspace it is authorized against — suggestions appear closer to the artifacts they affect, which is convenient but means the act of accepting a completion or committing an edit is itself the review step. In both cases the buyer, not the tool, owns the surface where the output ultimately lives.

The practical question is the same regardless of which tool you choose: who verifies the generated claim or the generated code, and at what point is human review, testing, or approval required before output crosses a line that matters. Treat any generated text or code as a draft until a person has checked it — and require that check before output becomes customer-facing text, code committed to a repository, an opened pull request, a merged change, or an input to a system-of-record decision. Neither tool removes that step; each only changes how near the suggestion sits to the place where the step has to happen. Buying decision aside, the review boundary is something your team defines and enforces, not something either vendor's surface decides for you.

Bottom line

• Decide by what job you are hiring the tool for, not by which product sounds more capable in marketing copy. Claude is a general-purpose assistant with coding among its uses; Copilot is an in-IDE coding assistant with chat and PR features around it.
• If your job is reading, writing, analysis, and occasional coding for an individual or a small team, default to Claude. The Free and Pro tiers are priced for that buyer; the Max tiers exist if usage outgrows Pro.
• If your job is shipping code in an IDE on GitHub every day, default to GitHub Copilot. The Free tier alone is enough to evaluate the experience without a credit card; Pro at $10/user/month is the standard individual seat.
• For engineering teams that also produce written deliverables, paying for both products is common and not duplicative — they cover different surfaces. Watch the combined per-developer bill and decide whether the writing surface justifies the second tool.
• Re-verify both vendors' pricing/plans pages directly before any team-level commitment; both have changed plans, quotas, and model lineups multiple times.

Sources

• Claude official product page: https://claude.com/product/overview — recorded as src-anthropic-claude-overview-2026-05-21 in data/sources.json with access_status = redirected (reached via redirect from anthropic.com/claude); cited here only as the official product URL, no pricing or feature claim asserted from this source.
• Claude pricing page: https://claude.com/pricing — recorded as src-anthropic-claude-pricing-2026-05-22 in data/sources.json with access_status = ok after a 2026-05-22 page-body read; this is the source of every Claude plan/price quoted on this page.
• GitHub Copilot official feature page: https://github.com/features/copilot — recorded as src-github-copilot-needs-verify in data/sources.json with access_status = ok; the id carries a legacy needs-verify semantic from an earlier fetch, but the current access status is ok. Cited here only as the official feature URL; every Copilot plan/price/quota on this page is sourced from the plans page below, not from this homepage source.
• GitHub Copilot plans page: https://github.com/features/copilot/plans — recorded as src-github-copilot-plans-2026-05-22 in data/sources.json with access_status = ok after a 2026-05-22 page-body read; this is the source of every Copilot plan, price, Free-tier quota, supported-editor entry, and listed-model reference quoted on this page.
• GitHub official changelog, "Claude Opus 5 is now available in GitHub Copilot": https://github.blog/changelog/2026-07-24-claude-opus-5-is-now-available-in-github-copilot/ — recorded as src-github-copilot-claude-opus-5-changelog-2026-07-25 in data/sources.json with access_status = ok after a 2026-07-25 KST HTTP 200 read; source of the "Source-freshness note (2026-07-25)" section. Supports only: gradual rollout of Claude Opus 5 in GitHub Copilot; availability across VS Code, Visual Studio, Copilot CLI, the Copilot cloud agent, the Copilot app, github.com, GitHub Mobile, JetBrains, Xcode, and Eclipse; eligibility limited to Copilot Pro+, Max, Business, and Enterprise; the Business/Enterprise admin requirement to enable the Claude Opus 5 policy; and GitHub's statement that the model is billed at provider list pricing under usage-based billing with buyers routed to GitHub's own pricing/model-request docs. No price figure, quota, benchmark, or performance claim is drawn from it.
• Anthropic official launch post, "Claude Opus 5": https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 — recorded as src-anthropic-claude-opus-5-launch-2026-07-25 in data/sources.json with access_status = ok after a 2026-07-25 KST HTTP 200 read; source of the Anthropic-side facts in the "Source-freshness note (2026-07-25)" section. Supports only: Anthropic launched Claude Opus 5 on July 24, 2026, and it is available through Anthropic's own Claude product and model surfaces. Anthropic's published benchmark, performance, safety, efficiency, and pricing claims for Claude Opus 5 are vendor claims and are intentionally not repeated or cited as fact on this page.

All six entries above resolve to official first-party URLs. Re-verify the pricing/plans pages before any new pricing-sensitive quote. If a later refresh changes the access status of src-github-copilot-needs-verify, this page does not need to be rewritten — it never asserts a fact from that source.

Internal links

• /tools/claude/
• /tools/github-copilot/
• /ai-coding/
• /ai-assistant/
• /compare/claude-vs-jasper/
• /compare/github-copilot-vs-gemini/

Disclosure

• Affiliate links: none.
• Sponsored content: none. Neither Anthropic nor GitHub / Microsoft has any relationship to this page.
• Generative AI assistance: this draft was assembled with the help of an AI assistant working from the HMP source records and the two qa_passed tool pages (tools/claude.md, tools/github-copilot.md).

Trademark notice

Claude and Anthropic are trademarks of Anthropic. GitHub and Copilot are trademarks of GitHub / Microsoft. Use here is referential only and does not imply endorsement, partnership, or affiliation with either vendor.

Update log

• 2026-05-23 (draft): first local draft created from templates/comparison-page-template.md. Both source tool pages (claude, github-copilot) are qa_passed per content/content-status.json.
• 2026-05-23 (QA): independent Section B walk-through completed. B1–B5 passed; content_status = qa_passed. Re-verify both vendors' pricing/plans pages by 2026-08-22, which is 90 days from the 2026-05-22 source-read date.
• 2026-06-29 (increment): added one evergreen "Buyer control and the review boundary" section (carrying a single durable increment marker dated 2026-06-29) between Alternatives and Bottom line. Source-neutral framing of Claude vs Copilot surfaces, account/workspace/repository boundaries, and the human review/testing/approval point before output becomes customer-facing text, repo code, a PR, a merged change, or a system-of-record decision. No pricing, plan, quota, model, ranking, benchmark, legal, or security claims added; no new sources or external links.
• 2026-07-25 (source-freshness increment): added one substantial "Source-freshness note (2026-07-25): a Claude model inside GitHub Copilot is not the Claude product" section, opened by a single natural dated bold lead label that is the durable body marker for this refresh, between Quick recommendation and Short answer. Trigger: July 24, 2026 official launches — GitHub's changelog (Claude Opus 5 gradually rolling out in GitHub Copilot; selectable across VS Code, Visual Studio, Copilot CLI, Copilot cloud agent, Copilot app, github.com, GitHub Mobile, JetBrains, Xcode, Eclipse; eligibility limited to Copilot Pro+, Max, Business, and Enterprise; Business/Enterprise admins must enable the Claude Opus 5 policy; billed at provider list pricing under usage-based billing per GitHub) and Anthropic's launch post (Claude Opus 5 launched July 24, 2026, available through Anthropic's own Claude product/model surfaces; no benchmark, performance, safety, efficiency, price, or superiority claim repeated). Answers the durable buyer question conservatively — selecting Claude Opus 5 inside Copilot does NOT replace a Claude subscription, Claude Code, or Claude API access; the host product's plan eligibility, admin policy, billing, and data-handling terms govern — with a six-point buyer verification checklist. One now-stale Short answer passage ("Claude ... does not put suggestions into your editor or PR") was qualified to note that eligible Copilot plans can select a Claude model in Copilot's own picker without the Claude product gaining an in-editor surface. Both official URLs added to Sources and to data/sources.json as src-github-copilot-claude-opus-5-changelog-2026-07-25 and src-anthropic-claude-opus-5-launch-2026-07-25 (source_type=changelog, access_status=ok, retrieved 2026-07-25 KST) and appended to this page's sources_used; one internal link to /compare/github-copilot-vs-gemini/ added. No benchmark number, price figure, quota, plan-entitlement-beyond-source-text, security, superiority, or ranking claim added; existing May 2026 pricing text unchanged and not presented as newly verified; no ad/Gumroad/UTM/affiliate/sponsored link added. content_type/content_status stay comparison_page/qa_passed; revenue inventory unchanged at 18 tool + 51 comparison = 69 qa_passed revenue pages + 5 site_page drafts.