I stumbled across ofsearchengines.com today. Honestly, it’s hilarious.
For context, JuicySearch is another OnlyFans directory and a direct competitor of Findapeach.
JuicySearch has built an “independent” OnlyFans directory review site, and somehow, in a fiercely contested competition, JuicySearch won.
Congratulations, JuicySearch. You must be overwhelmed.
But winning first place apparently wasn’t enough. JuicySearch is number one. Their own site, Facedigger, is number two. Another JuicySearch-owned site, SpicyRush, is number four. These are not three separate competitors: JuicySearch owns all three sites taking three of the top four places.
Forty-five services reviewed, and what a remarkable evening for the family.
Oh wow! JuicySearch’s “independent” reviewer picks JuicySearch first!
What a coincidence. Their other site takes second place.
And fourth? Another JuicySearch-owned site. My sides are splitting.
Screenshot captured 4 November 2026. Stamps and comments are our satire. Click the screenshot to see the unannotated original, or visit our joke copy. Laughing GIF: GRPH3B18, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
Welcome to the JuicySearch beauty pageant
Picture the scene. JuicySearch walks onto the stage. Behind the judging table sits JuicySearch, alongside fellow judges JuicySearch and JuicySearch. The scores come in. Perfect tens.
JuicySearch gasps, dabs away an imaginary tear, and graciously accepts the trophy from… JuicySearch. “Look! I’m the prettiest! The judges picked me!”
That is what this looks like to me. Except instead of a sash and a plastic crown, we get scoring tables, review pages and the appearance of independent scrutiny.
Please. It’s embarrassing enough to hold your own beauty pageant. Expecting everyone else to mistake it for independent recognition is asking rather a lot.
A one out of ten for Findapeach. Really, guys?
Then this “independent” reviewer gives Findapeach 1 out of 10 for long-tail search. In my opinion, that is one of our strongest areas and makes us one of JuicySearch’s strongest competitors.
JuicySearch gets 10 out of 10 for the basic query and 9 out of 10 for the long-tail query. Their other site, SpicyRush, gets 10 out of 10 for both. So their network gets a perfect ten for long-tail search, while we get a one.
Really, guys? Really?
And who beats JuicySearch on that long-tail test? SpicyRush, another site they control. Haha. Too funny.
The anonymous-reviewer explanation
Their About page offers this explanation: “Some engines we review don’t like what we publish. Staying anonymous protects our testers”. Pish posh.
Reviewers can receive abuse. That does not make commercial conflicts disappear, and it does not answer the obvious question: who is behind the website recommending these businesses?
Protecting a writer’s identity and disclosing a commercial relationship are perfectly compatible. You can do both.
“We need to protect our reviewers” is not an explanation for leaving readers unaware that three apparently separate recommendations belong to the same operating network.
Yes, I’m saying it’s them
My conclusion is unequivocal: JuicySearch is behind this review site.
Different hosting? Different technology? Sure. I have considered that. Neither settles who controls a website.
I’m keeping the investigative details private. I’m satisfied with my conclusion and prepared to stand behind it.
I am calling them out directly: JuicySearch, Facedigger, SpicyRush and the review site are controlled by the same people. They can deny it all they want. I have what I consider irrefutable evidence from tells left in their code, and I am not publishing those tells here.
The legal questions aren’t a joke
There is nothing automatically unlawful about reviewing your own business or publishing a comparison that puts it first.
But presenting a commercially interested recommendation as independent while concealing a material relationship can raise serious consumer-protection and misleading-advertising issues.
Under the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, misleading actions and omissions can be unlawful where the relevant conditions are met. That includes questions about concealed commercial intent and information consumers need to make an informed decision. European Commission guidance specifically discusses transparency around comparison tools and relationships that affect their impartiality.
The precise legal position depends on jurisdiction, presentation and evidence. This article is not reporting a court ruling against the site.
But the principle is straightforward: if you control the reviewer and the recommended business, readers should not have to investigate to discover the relationship.
An anonymous editorial team does not make that conflict disappear. Neither does a methodology page.
Here’s my disclosure
I run Findapeach. We compete with JuicySearch, and the JuicySearch “independent” review site puts us sixth. Yeah, nah. I just don’t see that as credible.
We now have more than a MILLION listings across 22 platforms. We update the entire million-plus catalogue every 48 hours, with most listings updated daily. We do everything JuicySearch does, in my opinion better, plus a whole lot more.
There. A commercial interest, disclosed in two sentences. It wasn’t difficult.
Readers can now take that into account when assessing what I say. They should have the same opportunity when assessing a supposedly independent recommendation.
Not to blow our own horn, but…
I struggle to see where JuicySearch is ahead. Some of the differences are straightforward to count. Others, such as search quality, are my assessment from using both services. Here is what I mean:
- Model inventory: 789,270 live OnlyFans listings, plus 255,089 listings from 21 other platforms. That is 1,044,359 listings across 22 platforms, more than a MILLION. Counts checked 4 November 2026. JuicySearch advertises around 714,000 creators.
- Platform coverage: Findapeach has models from over 20 platforms. JuicySearch advertises OnlyFans and Fansly coverage, with Fansly behind its paid plans.
- Advertising: we offer lower-cost advertising options for models, with control over their budgets and targeting.
- Search and image search: in my opinion, ours are better. Our search is more comprehensive, with deeper filtering, and our image search is free.
- Different views: Grid, Feed, Wide and Mixed layouts, plus ranked List and Top 20 views on tag and location pages.
- Transparency: we make clear which cards are Sponsored. In our published London comparison, none of the 22 paid placements we identified on JuicySearch carried its own advertising label. Readers can inspect our comparison and methodology.
Not every feature comparison is a matter of opinion. The size of an inventory, the number of platforms, the available views and whether a paid card has a label are things people can check.
So, for us to find an “independent review site” scoring Findapeach so far below JuicySearch? It demanded further investigation. And gee whiz… how funny. My conclusion: JuicySearch is responsible for the site.
Am I asking them to take the site down?
Well… I considered this, but no, I’m not. It’s too funny.
It’s too funny to see JuicySearch giving themselves this award. It’s too funny that, in my view, they are so insecure about their systems that they pretend an anonymous party is saying nice things about them.
I don’t want the site taken down. I want it to stay up forever so I can keep coming back to laugh at it. I’ve taken a copy of it, so if it IS taken down, I can republish it and keep coming back to laugh at it.
See our joke version at JuicySelfLoveSite.com.
Nice one, Juicy. You are just so pretty.