How this site works

What is actually here

84 desktop monitors from 21 brands, priced from $110 to $2,999, each with a page of its own, plus 6 computed shortlists, 59 head-to-head comparisons and 9 explainers. The catalog was last refreshed on 2026-09-25.

Where the specifications come from

The manufacturer’s own US product page is the primary source for every figure, and it doubles as the check that the model is still sold here — monitor lineups go stale within months. After that, in order: independent measurement sites for the few figures anyone actually meters, then the specification sheets that retailers publish for ports and stand adjustments. Every monitor page lists the specific URLs used for that model.

Nothing here is measured by us. There is no colorimeter, no photodiode rig, no darkened room. Where a number is a manufacturer claim it is presented as one, and the 12 peak-brightness figures that a named third party measured are printed in their own colour, beside the claim rather than instead of it, so the two are never confused.

What is computed rather than looked up

Three things, and they are the reason this site exists rather than a spec table.

Sharpness at a desk distance. Pixels per inch cannot be compared between screens you sit different distances from, so every monitor gets its pixels per degree of vision computed at a 24-inch reference distance — pixels per inch multiplied by 24 and by π/180 — and the bands are drawn at 40 and 60, the second being the roughly one-arcminute resolving limit of 20/20 vision.

Whether each port can carry the panel. Width × height × refresh × bits per pixel × 1.20 for blanking overhead, compared against the usable data rate of each input after line coding, with DSC compression counted at up to 3:1 where the monitor supports it — and only on the ports that can carry it, since DSC arrived with HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 and an HDMI 2.0 input gets no benefit from it. 11 monitors here cannot carry their own panel at its rated refresh and bit depth over any input they have, and their pages say which of the two reasons applies.

Whether an HDR badge means anything. DisplayHDR 400 requires 400 nits and permits a backlight with no dimming zones, so the certificate cannot be the test. A monitor is treated as able to display HDR when it is per-pixel emissive, or when it claims at least 600 nits behind at least one dimming zone. 38 of 84 pass, 21 of the ones that do not carry a certificate anyway, and 25 are marked as having no HDR at all, because their makers claim none. All three methods in full.

Every count on this site — including the ones in this paragraph — is read from the data file at build time rather than typed into copy, which is the only way a number in a sentence stays true after the catalog changes. The one thing kept apart from the specification copy is owner sentiment: where owner discussion was read it sits in its own section under its own heading, and every monitor page says above its pros and cons that those came from specification sheets and published measurements instead.

Why there are no star ratings

A rating is shown only when it comes with a citable source that is not a retailer. None of the 84 monitors here has one today, so no stars appear anywhere, there is no rating sort, and no aggregate-rating markup is emitted to search engines — the field is absent from the code rather than switched off. An uncited number feeding review markup is a false claim about real customers, and republishing a shop’s own ratings is not ours to do. Collecting sourced ratings is on the list; inventing them is not.

Owner sentiment, and where it is missing

Owner discussion is kept strictly apart from the specification copy. The pros and cons on a monitor page come from specification sheets and published measurements; anything attributed to owners sits in its own section, with its own heading, and only for monitors whose owner discussion was actually read — which is the one thing the catalog’s copyBasis field records. Coverage today is 65 of 84 monitors. The other 19 pages say so explicitly instead of showing an empty block, because a silent gap reads as “nothing to report”, which would be a different and false claim.

How the lists are ordered

Every shortlist prints the rule it was ordered by at the top of the page, and a list has to qualify at least three monitors to exist at all. The default order everywhere else — the catalog, the brand pages, the type pages — is sharpness at a desk distance, because it is a figure you can check rather than a judgement you have to accept. Nothing here is a paid placement, no manufacturer has any input into what appears or in what order, and there are no retailer links of any kind: no buy buttons, no affiliate tags, no “check price” calls to action. Prices are approximate snapshots from the last refresh and will differ from what any shop charges today.

Safety notices

Where a manufacturer or a safety regulator has recalled a monitor, that notice is printed on the affected model itself — at the top of its page, and as a mark on its card in every list and comparison it appears in — in the maker’s own terms, with a link to the notice, and its structured data stops saying the product is available. A recalled model is not quietly deleted: the people who already own one are the readers most likely to be looking it up. No monitor in the catalog carries one today.

Who “we” is

A small independent project, not a publication. There is no editorial staff, no reviewer and no test facility. Where this site makes a recommendation it states the checkable basis for it — “the sharpest 27-inch monitor under $400 in this catalog, by pixels per degree” — rather than asserting an opinion from an implied expert.

Corrections are welcome and are the fastest way to improve the data: chelsea@hagadornwebdev.com.