To get listed in best software lists, start from the searches your buyers already make. Type your category queries into Google and an AI assistant, write down which roundup articles show up and which ones the answers cite, and keep the 15 to 30 that are fresh, honest and full of products like yours. Make inclusion easy with a one-page fact sheet and a free account for testing. Then send each author a short, specific note about what their list is missing for their readers, follow up once, and keep the details current after you get in. Never pay for a link that pretends to be editorial. This is practical advice, not legal advice.
This guide is for indie SaaS founders with a working product and a few paying customers who keep seeing competitors in software roundups and wonder how they got there. The worked example company, its founder and all of its numbers are made up for illustration. The policy quotes are from real, linked sources.
Why do "best tools" lists matter for a small SaaS?
Because that is where a lot of buyers build their shortlist. Someone who needs scheduling software for a small clinic rarely starts on your homepage. They search "best scheduling software for small clinics", open two or three roundup articles, and try the products that appear more than once. If you are not on those pages, you are not on the shortlist, however good the product is.
There is a second reason. When people ask ChatGPT, Perplexity or Google's AI features for "the best X for Y", the answers often draw on the same kind of roundup pages and alternatives pages. I have not seen a trustworthy percentage, so check it yourself: ask three assistants your category question, open the cited sources and count how many are third-party lists. If several are, a good software roundup is one of the more practical ways to get mentioned in AI answers in your category. If you want the wider picture of how assistants pick sources, the Aura++ guide on getting your startup cited in AI search answers covers it; this post stays on the lists themselves.
This is not press coverage. A journalist writes a story; a list writer compares tools for a reader about to choose. For reporters, see the Aura++ playbook on getting press coverage without a PR agency. Review platforms and niche newsletters are separate channels too, and are left out here.
How do you find the lists worth getting into?
Start with the words your buyers use, not your own category name. Look at your signup form answers, sales calls and support emails, and write down 8 to 12 queries in three shapes:
Best for an audience: "best [category] for [audience]", for example "best invoicing app for freelance designers".
Alternatives: "[bigger competitor] alternatives" and "cheaper alternative to [competitor]". These alternatives pages are often where a small, focused tool fits best.
Job to be done: "tools to [job]", for example "tools to send quotes from your phone".
Run each query in Google in a private window and note the lists in the first 10 results. Ask the same question in two or three AI assistants and note every list they cite. Pages that show up in both go to the top.
What should your tracking sheet have?
A plain spreadsheet is enough. One row per list, with these columns:
URL and the query that found it
Google position, and which assistants cited it
Publisher type (see the table below)
Author name, if there is one
Last updated date shown on the page
Competitors listed, and how many are your size
Contact route (email, contact form, author profile)
Status: not contacted, pitched, followed up, added, declined
Expect 30 to 60 rows from the first pass. You will cut most of them next.
Publisher type | What they want | Realistic odds for a small SaaS |
|---|---|---|
Independent blogger or solo reviewer | Tools they can test that their readers have not heard of, and accurate details | Good, if you fit their audience and are easy to try |
Niche site focused on one industry | Options that suit their specific readers, like tools built for one trade | Good, especially if you serve that niche better than the big names |
A SaaS company's own comparison or "best X" post | To look fair while ranking their own product first | Mixed; some add non-competing tools, few add direct rivals |
Affiliate site | Commission; lists often follow the payouts | Low without an affiliate program, and the list may not be honest anyway |
Big media or tech publication | Well-known, well-reviewed tools; often run by an editorial team with schedules | Low at first; easier after smaller lists and customer proof |
How do you tell if a list is worth pitching?
Before you write a word, spend two minutes on each row and ask five questions.
Is it fresh? Lists updated in the last year are better bets, because someone is clearly maintaining them.
Is it pay to play? Look for "sponsored" or "partner" labels, a paid "submit your tool" page, or identical affiliate links on every entry. That is a different conversation (see below).
Are the tools in it your peers? A $15 a month tool for freelancers looks out of place among enterprise suites.
Does it get real readers? Third-party traffic estimators are guesses, not measurements. Better signals: it ranks for your query, assistants cite it, and real people comment on it.
Would you be one of the best options for its reader? Be honest. If not, skip it.
Keep the 15 to 30 rows that pass. That is a week or two of careful outreach, not a mass campaign.
What makes it easy for a writer to include you?
Writers who maintain roundups are busy and often test tools themselves. Remove the friction with one page on your site, something like /for-writers:
One-line description in plain words: what it does and for whom. "Quote and invoice app for independent electricians" beats "AI-powered business platform".
Who it is not for. Writers trust this, and it helps them place you correctly.
Pricing summary with a link to your live pricing page, so they do not copy an old number.
Four to six screenshots of the real product, plus your logo files.
A free account for testing, or a simple way to request one, with no card required.
A contact email that reaches you, not a ticket queue.
Keep the page accurate. If a writer copies your price from it and it is wrong in six months, that is your fault, not theirs.
How do you write the pitch?
This is where most best tools listicle outreach goes wrong: the same template to 200 sites, ignored by all of them. A good pitch is short and could only have been sent to this one list.
Address the author by name if you can find it (bylines, author pages, the site's about page).
Name their specific list and show you read it.
Say what the list is missing for their readers, in one or two sentences.
Offer test access and your fact sheet link. Do not attach a deck.
Make it easy to say no.
What does a weak pitch look like next to a better one?
Weak | Better |
|---|---|
"Hi there, I love your blog! We are an innovative AI platform and would love to be featured in your article." | "Hi Dana, I read your list of quoting apps for tradespeople, updated in August. All seven picks are built for teams with an office. Your readers who work alone from a van might want one more option." |
Generic feature list copied from the homepage | One sentence on the difference that matters to their reader: "Quotes are made on the phone in under two minutes, and the customer approves them by text." |
"Can you add us with a dofollow link? Happy to pay." | "If you want to try it, here is a free account and a one-page fact sheet. No pressure either way." |
Three follow-ups in a week | One polite follow-up after about a week, then stop |
The follow-up is one or two lines: "Just checking this reached you. No worries if it is not a fit." Then mark the row as no reply and move on. Some authors add tools months later at their next update, so do not burn the relationship.
Notice what the better pitch does not do. It does not ask for a link, a position or a nice review. Google's spam policies on link spam list "buying or selling links for ranking purposes" as link spam, and that explicitly includes "sending someone a product in exchange for them writing about it and including a link". Offering a free account so a writer can test your tool is normal. Making that account conditional on a link or a good write-up is the line you should not cross. They decide what to write.
When is a paid placement fair, and when is it spam?
It is fair when it is honestly labelled as a paid placement. Google's spam policies say buying links for advertising or sponsorship is fine as long as the link is qualified, and its guide on qualifying outbound links says paid placements should be marked with rel="sponsored" (rel="nofollow" is still accepted). A clearly marked sponsorship on a site with real readers can be a fair ad buy. Judge it like any ad.
Red flags that you are buying spam, not readers:
The seller promises a "dofollow" link or a ranking position.
The site has dozens of "best X" lists across unrelated topics, all written in the same voice.
Every listed product has paid, and the order is set by price.
There is no sponsored label, and they ask you not to mention payment.
Affiliate lists are their own case. If a writer earns commission from the tools they list, the US FTC's Endorsement Guides questions and answers expect that relationship to be disclosed clearly. Starting your own affiliate program is a bigger decision than this post can cover.
Should you publish your own "best X" page?
You can, if it is honest: list the real options for your audience, competitors included, with fair notes on who each suits, say clearly which one is yours, and admit where others are better. If you are writing head-to-head pages against a single competitor, the Aura++ guide to writing a SaaS comparison page that ranks walks through the format. Your own page does not replace third-party lists, though. Buyers know who wrote it.
How do you keep your listings accurate after you get in?
Getting added is the start. Lists go stale: an old price, a removed feature, a free plan you no longer offer. Readers arriving with the wrong expectation leave annoyed.
Keep a "listed in" tab in your sheet with the URL, what it says about you, and the date you last checked it.
When you change pricing, plans or a headline feature, email every author who lists you with a short correction and a link to the new pricing page. Thank them for the listing first.
Check each listing once a quarter. If something is wrong, send a polite correction with a source. Do not ask to be moved up.
How do you measure whether lists bring customers?
Use three rough signals together instead of hunting for one perfect one.
Referral traffic. Check referrers in your analytics for the list domains. If a writer agrees to use your link with UTM tags, great, but do not insist; many will not.
Self-reported source. Add an optional free-text "Where did you hear about us?" field at signup. People often write "saw you in a list of best X", which no referrer report will show. The Hashnode piece on asking where people heard about you in free text explains why this catches what referrers miss.
AI answer spot check. Once a month, ask the same three assistants your top five category questions and note whether you are mentioned, and which page they cite when you are.
Compare month to month. You are looking for a trend, not a precise conversion rate.
What traps should you avoid?
Mass pitching. Two hundred template emails will get you a reputation, not listings. Authors talk to each other.
Fake comments. Posting as "happy customers" on lists, or asking friends to, is dishonest and easy to spot.
Paying for dofollow links. That is link buying in Google's own words.
Overclaiming. If your pitch says "the best" or "the only" and the writer finds that is not true, you are out of this list and probably the next one.
Pitching lists you do not fit. The odd one out on an enterprise list does not convert.
Forgetting the lists you are already on. Old information turns a listing from help to harm.
What does this look like for a tiny SaaS?
Quoteloft is invented, and so are all the numbers. It is a quote and invoice app for independent electricians and plumbers who work alone, run by its founder Imelda, with 85 paying customers on one $19 a month plan.
Three new customers in one month wrote "saw a list of quoting apps" in Imelda's signup question. She ran nine queries, such as "best quoting app for electricians" and "[big field service suite] alternatives for one-person businesses", in Google and in two AI assistants. She logged 41 lists.
Her qualifying pass cut that to 18. She dropped 9 that had not been updated in over two years, 7 that only listed enterprise field service suites, 4 that sold placements with no sponsored label, and 3 affiliate-only lists. She built a /for-writers page with screenshots, the one-line description, a "not for teams with dispatchers" note and a free 60-day account.
Over two weeks she sent 18 personal pitches and one follow-up each. Results after six weeks (example data):
11 replies, 6 additions, 2 "maybe at our next update", 3 polite no's.
One niche site for trades businesses that two assistants already cited added Quoteloft as the pick for solo electricians.
5 signups wrote a list as their source in the free-text field; referrers showed traffic from 4 of the 6 lists.
One list had her old price within a month; she emailed a correction and the author fixed it the same week.
None of this is a benchmark. Your category, your product and the lists in it will be different.
What is a realistic 14-day plan?
Days | Task | Output |
|---|---|---|
1 | Write 8 to 12 buyer queries from signup answers, calls and support emails | Query list |
2 to 3 | Run each query in Google and two or three AI assistants; log every list and citation | Sheet with 30 to 60 rows |
4 | Qualify: freshness, pay to play, peers, real readers, honest fit | 15 to 30 rows to pitch |
5 to 6 | Build the /for-writers page and set up free test accounts | Live fact sheet |
6 | Find authors and contact routes for every row | Contact column filled |
7 to 9 | Send 5 to 10 personal pitches a day | All rows pitched |
10 | Add a free-text "Where did you hear about us?" field at signup | Attribution in place |
11 to 13 | Reply to writers and set up test accounts the same day | Status column current |
14 to 16 | One follow-up to anyone who has not replied | Final status per row |
Monthly after that | AI answer spot check; quarterly listing accuracy check | Trend notes |
FAQ
Should I pay to be included in a best tools list?
Only for a clearly labelled sponsorship on a site whose readers would buy your product, with the link marked sponsored or nofollow. Never pay for a link dressed up as an editorial pick.
How do I find who wrote the list?
Check the byline and author page, then the about or contact page. Many writers list an email or social profile. If there is only a contact form, use it and name the list in the first line.
Do these lists help with AI search?
Often, yes, because AI answers for "best X" questions frequently cite roundup and alternatives pages. It varies by assistant and by query, so check your own category every month rather than trusting a general claim.
What if a list says something wrong about my product?
Email the author with a short, polite correction and a link that proves it, such as your pricing page or changelog. Thank them for the listing first. Do not ask for a better position in the same email.
If you have an indie SaaS that buyers should be able to find, you can also launch it on IndieHunt, one more place where people discover new tools.
