Every ranking
10 lists, each ordered by a stated rule and each entry traceable back to a published figure. Editorial rather than statistical, and labelled as such.
The Tribune ranks findings, mistakes and moves rather than products. The house position across all of it is that the coaching profession is marketed at roughly three times the speed it actually moves, and that almost every hard number in the published data contradicts the pitch.
These lists exist to put the number next to the claim. Where a piece of widely repeated advice holds up, the ranking says so; where it is true on a timescale nobody mentions, it says that instead.
Each list names the rule it is ordered by, the same as everywhere else on this network, and every entry traces back to a figure published on coachingrates.com, coachingniches.com or coachingstats.com.
The short answer
Ten editorial rankings built on published findings rather than on products — the biggest findings, the most expensive mistakes, what actually raises a rate, the most overrated advice. Each is ordered by a stated rule and traces back to a figure published on one of the sister sites.
What gets ranked here, and by what
Findings, by how much they change a decision. Most coaching statistics are interesting. A small number change what you do on Monday, and those are ranked by how much.
Mistakes, by damage. Not by how embarrassing they are to admit, which produces a different and less useful order. Several of the most expensive are made carefully, with a spreadsheet open, by people doing the right kind of thinking with the wrong denominator.
Advice, by the gap between how often it is repeated and what the evidence supports. None of it is a lie. All of it is sold with more confidence than the data carries.
Moves, by documented effect on income. Set against how long each one takes to act on, because the largest move on that list takes quarters and the second largest takes a week.
Four numbers that recur across these lists
Common questions
What is the Coaching Tribune?
A publication about the business of coaching, built on the published data rather than on practitioner opinion. It is one of six sites published by Coachful, which makes coaching software, and every page says so.
Where do the figures come from?
The ICF Global Coaching Study 2025 and the 2026 Coaching Business Report, plus the benchmark pages on the sister sites. Every entry links back to the page carrying the figure and its source.
Why so much scepticism about standard coaching advice?
Because the timelines attached to it are usually missing. Content marketing works in six to eighteen months, courses earn under $5,000 in year one without an audience, certification matters in one half of the market and not the other. The advice is rarely wrong about the activity and frequently wrong about the order or the horizon.
Who publishes The Coaching Tribune?
Coachful, which makes coaching software. Coachful appears in the software rankings here and is marked as ours wherever it does. Each ranking states its criterion before the list so readers can assess the order.
Is any of this good news?
Most of it, actually. Almost every constraint described here is structural rather than personal — capacity ceilings, time allocation, who signs the cheque. Structures can be planned around, which is a considerably better position than believing you are uniquely bad at this.
The verdict
Read the mistakes list and the overrated-advice list together. Between them they account for most of the avoidable expense in a coaching practice, and several of the errors are made by the most careful people.
Then act on the two moves that are available this week rather than this year: sell a package instead of an hour, and take back the hours going to work nobody is paying you for.
Where the numbers come from
Income and rate figures come from coachingrates.com. Benchmarks come from coachingstats.com. Niche judgements come from coachingniches.com. Each of those names its own sources and says which figures are measured and which are estimates.