Why We Refuse to Participate in "Best POS" Reports

We regularly receive invitations to participate in "Best POS" reports, rankings, and comparison guides.

We always decline.

Not because we cannot rank well — but because we fundamentally disagree with how these reports are produced and what they optimize for.

This Insight explains how those lists work, who typically appears on them, and why serious operators should be cautious when using them to make decisions.

How most "Best POS" reports are actually made

Despite how they are presented, most POS rankings are not independent research.

In practice, they are built around:

• • Paid sponsorships
• • Placement fees
• • Lead-generation agreements
• • Affiliate revenue per signup

Vendors who pay more receive:

• ✓ Higher visibility
• ✓ Better positioning
• ✓ More favorable descriptions

Vendors who do not pay are:

• ✕ Omitted
• ✕ Minimally covered
• ✕ Or described in generic terms

This is not a secret. It is the business model.

Why these lists favor cheap, generic POS platforms

Paid rankings naturally favor POS systems that:

• • Optimize for mass adoption
• • Focus on low entry pricing
• • Promise fast onboarding
• • Require minimal sales effort

These platforms are often:

• • Cloud-only
• • Feature-driven
• • Designed for single-location businesses
• • Optimized for growth metrics, not operational depth

This makes them attractive to:

• • Investors
• • Market-share-driven strategies
• • High-volume lead funnels

It does not make them suitable for complex, multi-location operations.

What these reports do not evaluate

Most "Best POS" lists fail to meaningfully assess:

• ✕ Offline-first operation
• ✕ Real-world failure scenarios
• ✕ Peak-hour execution under pressure
• ✕ Multi-location consistency
• ✕ Long-term operational cost
• ✕ Vendor lock-in and roadmap dependency

These factors are hard to measure — and difficult to monetize in a report. So they are usually ignored.

Why serious operators eventually outgrow these systems

Operators do not replace their POS because:

• • A report ranked it lower
• • A feature checkbox was missing

They replace it because:

• ✕ Staff struggles during service
• ✕ Training takes too long
• ✕ Stores behave inconsistently
• ✕ Outages stop operations
• ✕ Execution slows as the business grows

None of this shows up in paid rankings.

Why Yakuma is not part of these lists

Yakuma is built for:

• ✓ Operational resilience
• ✓ Offline-first execution
• ✓ Multi-location control
• ✓ Long-term scalability

These qualities do not fit neatly into sponsored comparison grids.

We choose not to:

• • Pay for placement
• • Compete on marketing lists
• • Optimize messaging for affiliate funnels

Instead, we focus on explaining when a POS stops being good enough — and what replaces it.

What operators should do instead

Rather than asking:

Ask:

• • "Where does our current POS slow us down?"
• • "When does execution break?"
• • "How much time does staff spend operating the POS instead of serving customers?"
• • "What happens when connectivity drops?"
• • "How hard is it to roll out change across all locations?"

These questions reveal far more than any ranking.