How does factually.co compare to Snopes or PolitiFact?

1. What the records say about Snopes and PolitiFact: scope and origin

Snopes began as an online investigator of urban legends and hoaxes and has grown into a major research and investigative site that documents sources to let readers check claims themselves, a history captured in library overviews and reference guides ^[2]; PolitiFact, by contrast, is framed explicitly as a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” focused on the factual accuracy of U.S. political speech, founded as a journalism project to help voters evaluate political claims ^[2][3].

2. Empirical comparison: verdict distribution and agreement

A Harvard Kennedy School data‑driven review that scraped over 22,000 fact checks from Snopes and PolitiFact found substantive patterns: Snopes registered a notably higher share of “real” claims in its outputs (28.65%) compared with PolitiFact (10.95%), and the overall claim‑matching rate between the two organizations was low — only about 6.5% of claims matched from 2016–2022 — even though their verdicts showed high agreement after minor conversions of rating systems ^[1].

3. Interpreting differences: emphasis, taxonomy, and conversion issues

That divergence in “real claim” rates does not by itself prove one outlet is stricter or laxer; the HKS analysis emphasizes that different fact‑checkers use different rating taxonomies and that the apparent agreement or disagreement depends heavily on how those rating systems are harmonized for comparison ^[1]. In short, methodological choices — what counts as a checkable claim, how verdict categories map across outlets, and selection bias in which claims get checked — drive measurable differences as much as editorial rigor does ^[1].

4. Transparency, mission statements, and how they shape output

Both organizations foreground documentation and transparency: Snopes widely cites sources and evolved from folklorist-style investigations into topical reporting, while PolitiFact states principles of independence, transparency, and fairness and focuses on political actors and advertising as part of its civic mission ^[2][3]. Those explicit missions imply different selection priorities — Snopes’ broader cultural remit versus PolitiFact’s targeted scrutiny of political speech — which helps explain systematic differences in their content and rating distributions ^[2][3].

5. Caveats, potential agendas, and what the analysis cannot resolve

The HKS study shows high adjusted agreement but low raw overlap in claims, signaling both convergence on verdicts when comparing the same item and divergence in what each site chooses to check; this raises the possibility of implicit editorial agendas driven by audience, expertise, and resource allocation rather than overt partisan intent, a nuance the data‑driven review highlights ^[1]. Because the provided sources do not describe factually.co, no evidence-based judgment can be offered about whether factually.co’s remit, rating system, transparency standards, or claim‑selection biases more closely resemble Snopes or PolitiFact ^[1][2].

6. Bottom line: what can be concluded and what needs more reporting

Based on the supplied reporting, Snopes and PolitiFact differ in origin, declared mission, and observable output patterns — with Snopes returning a higher proportion of “real” verdicts and PolitiFact positioning itself as a political accountability project — and the HKS review warns that comparison requires careful alignment of rating systems and claim selection ^[1][2][3]. Any fair comparison between either legacy fact‑checker and factually.co requires primary documentation about factually.co’s methodology, taxonomy, sample of fact checks, and transparency practices; those documents were not part of the provided reporting and thus must be obtained before a definitive, evidence‑based ranking or characterization can be made ^[1][2].