Video downloader rankings you can check for yourself

The five weighted criteria

The total is out of 10, weighted across five criteria. The weights are not arbitrary, they are ordered by how much each one actually affects day-to-day usability.

Why reliability gets its own 20%: platforms in this space keep adjusting their anti-automation measures, so no parsing logic stays valid forever. A tool that claims 200 platforms but has not shipped in six months is less usable in practice than one covering 20 platforms that releases weekly.

Three rules about our data

1. We publish tested results, not vendor copy

The Supported sites column reports what we actually got working. A vendor support list usually includes entries that broke and were never removed, so the number only ever goes up. It reads as a historical total, not current capability.

A big gap gets flagged explicitly. For example, SnapWC claims 10,000+ and CR TubeGet claims 2,000+; both carry an overstated reach tag on their pages.

2. Every page says who a tool is wrong for

Every tool page has a dedicated section on its weak points, and every review has a when not to pick this part. A review that only lists strengths carries no information. If every tool looks good, you still do not know which one to pick.

We also keep the low scorers. For example, SnapWC scores only 6.9, but it is useful as a fallback for obscure sites. People search for it, so they should be able to find an honest assessment of it here.

3. An overall score is not a fit for your use case

This is the part people misread most. The overall score measures peak capability, not whether it suits you.

Example: SaveFrom.net scores 8.6 overall, above Easy TikTok Video Downloader at 8.3, yet the latter is clearly better for the specific job of TikTok (watermark-free hit rate 40/40 versus 14/33). That is why we split Rankings (ordered by overall score) and Best for your use case (ordered by what you actually need) into two separate sets of pages.

How often we re-check and update

• Scores are re-checked monthly. We re-run the test links and adjust whatever changed.
• Breakages are updated as they happen. When a platform change breaks a tool, we log it in Industry news and mark the status on that tool's page.
• Reader corrections go to the front of the queue. When a correction comes in we retest, then update the page and note it in the news feed.

The Data checked date on each page is when that page was last re-verified.

How we run the tests

The method is plain, but it is repeatable:

1. A fixed test set. For each platform we keep a set of public links covering the typical shapes: a standard video, a high-resolution video, a playlist, an image post. Every tool runs the same set.
2. Three things get recorded. Whether it downloads, what you actually get (resolution, audio present or not, watermark present or not), and the error text when it fails.
3. Two kinds of network. Residential and data centre. This separates the tool being bad from the IP being challenged by the platform. The latter affects every online tool and should not be charged to any single one of them.
4. Public content only. We neither test nor discuss anything that requires bypassing a paywall, a membership gate or DRM.