We could probably split our recommendations between:
The latter 3 with their account-based controls are kind of an entirely separate type of service compared to the first three, they’re more like a cloud-hosted Pi-hole, and we should probably explain that distinction more clearly.
This is also kind of related to the problem this person had:
Just to make it more confusing, doesn’t AdGuard have public DNS where you don’t need an account. They are something in the middle. I agree though, distinguishing from DNS providers where you need account is a good call.
(so Control D and AdGuard will be listed twice, but in the first section we’ll be linking specifically to their public offerings and also adding the “Free DNS” text to the table to make it especially clear)
I do think that a dedicated article for the configurable DNS services + the self-hostable services would be nice (e.g. NextDNS, Adguard Private DNS, ControlD, Adguard Home, and Pi-hole)
I suppose the argument for splitting them, would be that people interested in one of the above services are seeking more than just a DNS server, we are drawn to these options because we want (1 )control and flexibility, and (2) insight/data/analytics/logs, so in a way these services address a different and broader set of needs than a standard DNS server.
I suppose the argument against, is that it fragments the DNS server recommendations, and might be a bit messy to disentangle (For instance a single company, Adguard, has a standard public DNS, a private DNS service similar to NextDNS, and a self-hostable solution similar to Pi-Hole)k
If it were me, I think I would either write one article, but make it clear that there are two distinct sub-categories, or separate it into two difference categories.