Nine months ago I sat down with a client’s household budget spreadsheet and counted fourteen recurring media charges, and six of them were for services nobody in the house could name. That’s not unusual. It’s the default state of the “streaming alternatives” conversation in 2026: not “cable versus streaming” anymore, but “which of the thirty legal ways to watch something are actually worth paying for.”
I’ve spent the better part of eight years advising small media businesses and cord-cutting households on exactly this question: which platforms to keep, which to drop, and which “alternatives” are just piracy with better marketing. This guide is the version of that conversation I wish more people had before their bill hit $140 a month.
The Streaming Landscape Has Already Won. The Bill Hasn’t Caught Up
Cable didn’t lose slowly. It lost decisively, and the numbers from 2026 confirm it. Streaming accounted for 48.6% of total U.S. television watch-time in May 2026, according to Nielsen’s monthly Gauge report, more than broadcast and cable combined, for the third month running. Cable’s share, by contrast, has been sliding for a decade as studios redirect original programming away from linear channels and toward their own apps.
The financial picture backs this up. The U.S. video streaming industry generated $102.9 billion in revenue in 2026, growing at 5.2% year-over-year with a profit margin north of 27%, following a five-year compound annual growth rate of 6.9%. That’s not a disruption story anymore. That’s the incumbent.
But “streaming won” doesn’t mean “streaming is cheap.” Average prices across the ten largest providers rose again this year, and consumer patience is visibly thinning. More than one in five U.S. adults reported canceling an entertainment subscription specifically to manage household costs as of January 2026, and monthly cancellation rates have hovered between 22% and 28% since 2023. Deloitte’s Digital Media Trends research points to the same pattern from a different angle: people keep subscribing to new services, but they’re actively trimming the total number they carry at any one time.
That’s the tension this guide is built around. You don’t need fewer options. You need a system for choosing between them.
Why “Alternatives” Search Traffic Spikes Every Year
Every time a hit show drops or a platform raises prices, search volume for “[Netflix/Hulu/whatever] alternatives” spikes. Some of that traffic is genuinely looking for a different paid service. A meaningful chunk of it lands on pages that quietly point toward unlicensed streaming sites and pirated download aggregators, the ones promising every movie ever made, free, no account required.
I want to be direct about this part, because most articles in this space aren’t: those sites aren’t a gray-area alternative. They’re a security and legal liability dressed up as a convenience. The FTC has published consumer warnings on this exact pattern since at least 2019, and the mechanics haven’t changed, only the packaging has. Free-movie sites are consistently used as malware bait, whether through fake “Play” buttons, disguised installers, or browser extensions bundled with a stream. One 2026 industry analysis found illegal streaming platforms carry malware exposure more than 65% higher than legitimate sites, and a coordinated Europol enforcement action against illegal streaming operations in late 2025 was estimated to have cost film studios and producers $55 million in the process of shutting portions of that ecosystem down.
None of that is a reason to overpay for five different apps you barely open. It’s a reason to get precise about what “alternative” actually means. In this guide, it means: legal, priced fairly for what you use, and matched to how you actually watch. Not a workaround that trades a subscription fee for a malware risk.
The Four Real Categories of Legal Streaming Alternatives
Most comparison articles flatten this into “paid vs. free,” which misses how the market actually works. There are four distinct categories, and knowing which one solves your specific problem saves you from paying for the wrong thing.
1. Subscription Video on Demand (SVOD)
This is the category most people mean by “streaming service”: Netflix, Max, Disney+, Paramount+, Apple TV+. You pay monthly or annually for an ad-free (or ad-supported) library plus original programming exclusive to that platform. If you have thoughtfully explored the features that separate strong streaming applications from mediocre ones, you already know the real differentiator between SVOD platforms isn’t catalog size. It’s how well the recommendation engine, offline downloads, and multi-profile controls actually work day to day.
2. Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television (FAST)
FAST channels are the fastest-growing legal alternative category in the entire industry right now, and they’re genuinely underused. Think Tubi, Pluto TV, The Roku Channel, Freevee-style services, and PBS’s various apps. No subscription, no account requirement in most cases, funded entirely by ad breaks. Nielsen’s own Gauge data shows platforms like Tubi and The Roku Channel posting consistent month-over-month viewing share gains; Roku Channel alone held a platform-best 3.0% of total U.S. TV usage in early 2026. These aren’t fringe products anymore; they’re a legitimate replacement for a chunk of what people used to get from basic cable.
3. Live TV Streaming (vMVPD)
Services like YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, and Fubo replicate a cable-style channel bundle, including live sports and news, delivered over the internet instead of a coaxial line. This is the category that actually replaces cable one-to-one, rather than replacing “a show” or “a movie.” It’s also the most expensive alternative on this list, frequently landing within $10–20 of what a basic cable package cost five years ago, which is worth knowing before you assume “streaming” automatically means “cheaper.”
4. Transactional and Library Platforms
Rental and purchase platforms such as Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video’s rental catalog, and Vudu/Fandango at Home fill the gap for the one movie you want to watch once. For infrequent viewers, renting three or four titles a year is almost always cheaper than maintaining a subscription you open twice a month.
Comparison: Where Each Category Actually Wins
| Category | Typical Monthly Cost | Best For | Trade-off |
| SVOD (Netflix, Max, Disney+, etc.) | $8–$23 per service | Original series, deep back-catalogs | Costs stack fast across 3–4 services |
| FAST (Tubi, Pluto TV, Roku Channel) | $0 | Casual viewing, older films/TV, background content | Fixed ad breaks, less new-release content |
| Live TV Streaming (YouTube TV, Fubo) | $65–$85 | Live sports, news, full channel replacement | Close to old cable pricing |
| Transactional (Apple TV, Prime rentals) | Pay-per-title, $4–$25 | Infrequent viewers, new theatrical releases | No flat monthly value if you watch often |
Live Sports Is the One Category Where People Still Get Tempted by Piracy
Sports is the single biggest reason people search for “streaming alternatives” in a way that leads them toward unlicensed sites, because live sports rights are fragmented across so many legitimate platforms that no single legal subscription covers everything. I’ve had more than one client tell me they only ever considered a sketchy streaming site because they couldn’t figure out which of five services actually had the game they wanted.
The legal fix here isn’t one perfect app. It’s a short-term subscription strategy. ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount+, and YouTube TV each carry exclusive live sports windows for specific leagues and events. If you’ve already worked through how to plan and execute a livestream from the broadcaster’s side, the viewer-side logic is the mirror image: identify exactly which rights-holder has your event, subscribe for that month, cancel afterward if you don’t need it year-round. It’s more admin than a single piracy bookmark, but it’s the difference between watching a game and handing your card details to a site running fake CAPTCHA pages, which is a documented pattern behind the malware distribution the FTC has flagged repeatedly.
Managing the Real Problem: Subscription Overload
The average streaming household now pays for roughly 2.5 platforms at once, and that number climbs fast once you add a live-sports subscription for the season and a kids’ service for a younger household member. There are three legitimate ways to bring that bill back down.
Bundle deliberately, not by accident. Studio-backed bundles (Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+, or Paramount+ with Showtime folded in) are usually priced below buying the same services separately, but only if you’d have subscribed to all three anyway. Bundling into services you don’t watch isn’t a discount; it’s a different way to overpay.
Rotate instead of stacking. Subscribe to one prestige-drama platform for the month a season drops, binge it, cancel, move to the next. This works especially well for platforms with sparse, seasonal release schedules and poorly for platforms you use for background/casual viewing: that’s what the free FAST tier is for.
Split legitimately. Family- and household-sharing plans, and third-party cost-splitting services built specifically for this purpose, let multiple people share the cost of a plan that already permits multiple profiles or streams. That’s meaningfully different from password-sharing around a platform’s terms of service. Most major platforms have already tightened enforcement here, so a formal split plan is the more durable version of the same idea.
If you’re managing this across a household with a mix of ages and interests, it’s worth revisiting your list every quarter rather than assuming last year’s subscriptions still match what people actually watch. That single habit, a scheduled subscription audit, has saved every client I’ve walked through this process more money than any individual platform switch.
A Practitioner’s Note on What Actually Drives Cancellations
Here’s something that doesn’t show up in most “best alternatives” roundups: the platforms with the lowest churn aren’t the cheapest ones; they’re the ones with the clearest content identity. Households rarely cancel a service because the price is objectively too high; they cancel because they can’t remember the last thing they watched on it. When I’m auditing a client’s subscriptions, I ask them to name the last three things they watched on each service before we look at price at all. A platform nobody can describe a recent watch on is the one to cut, regardless of what it costs.
This matters for the “alternatives” conversation specifically, because the instinct when a bill gets too high is to swap one paid service for another paid service. Often the better move is dropping to a FAST platform for that content category entirely, rather than shuffling which $12/month app fills the same role.
Free and Legal Doesn’t Mean Second-Rate Anymore
There’s a lingering assumption that free-with-ads streaming is a downgrade from piracy-level “free everything.” That gap has closed considerably. FAST platforms now carry meaningful licensed libraries: recent-past seasons of network shows, full film catalogs from major studios, and in some cases live linear channels replicating actual broadcast schedules. Public broadcasters’ apps add another legal free layer, particularly for documentary and educational content.
The honest trade-off is discovery, not quality: FAST catalogs rotate, and you can’t always find a specific title on demand the way you can on a paid platform. For appointment viewing of one exact show, that’s a real limitation. For the “something’s on in the background” or “I want a decent movie, don’t care which” use case that used to send people toward pirated aggregators, it’s a complete replacement: legal, safe, and at zero cost.
What Happened After the Last Big Subscriber Wave
The 2022 surge around hits like Stranger Things offers a useful case study in how content, not price, drives platform loyalty. Netflix’s subscriber growth accelerated sharply around major releases that year, and that pattern has only intensified. Nielsen’s own reporting shows Stranger Things alone generating close to 12 billion viewing minutes in a single month as recently as November 2025, and again topping streaming programming in January 2026 with over 15 billion minutes. That’s the clearest evidence available that exclusive tentpole content, not raw price competitiveness, is still what keeps a subscription active month to month. If you’re deciding which paid alternative earns a permanent slot in your budget versus which one gets rotated in and out, exclusive-content strength is the metric that predicts long-term value better than sticker price does.
The Password-Sharing Crackdown Changed the Math
If you built your streaming strategy before 2023, it’s worth revisiting the assumptions. Password-sharing enforcement has gone from a controversial experiment to standard industry practice across nearly every major SVOD platform. What used to be a free way to extend one subscription across three households is now, in most cases, an additional per-user or “extra member” charge, or an outright login block if the account and the device are detected in different locations for too long.
This is the single most common reason clients tell me their streaming bill crept up without them adding a new service. The fix isn’t fighting the enforcement; it’s factoring the real, current cost of a shared account into your comparison instead of the cost you remember from a few years ago. A platform that looked like the cheapest option under the old sharing rules may not be anymore once you add the extra-member fee for everyone actually using it. Recalculate before you assume any platform is still your cheapest SVOD option.
Platform-by-Platform: What Each Major SVOD Actually Does Well
Comparison articles that just list logos and prices miss the part that actually matters: what each platform is for. Here’s the practitioner version, based on what clients consistently report using each service for versus what they thought they were paying for.
Netflix remains the volume leader by a wide margin, holding roughly 8.8% of total U.S. TV usage on its own in recent Nielsen reporting: more than most entire cable networks combined. Its strength is breadth: a deep back-catalog plus a steady cadence of new original series and films, which is why it tends to be the one household members most reliably name something recent they watched on it.
Disney+ is the strongest single-platform choice for households with young kids, largely because of curated, ad-tier-friendly kids’ profiles and parental controls that are noticeably more granular than most competitors’. Paired with Hulu and ESPN+ in a bundle, it also becomes a reasonable general-entertainment-plus-live-sports package for a family that would otherwise juggle three separate subscriptions.
Max (HBO’s platform) skews toward prestige drama and theatrical-adjacent releases, and it’s the platform where the “rotate instead of stack” strategy pays off best: subscribe for the month a flagship series airs, then drop it until the next one.
Prime Video functions less like a single product and more like three: the included library that comes bundled with an existing Amazon Prime membership, a growing slate of live sports (including recent NFL and NBA Conference Finals coverage that helped push Prime Video’s Nielsen share to a platform record above 4.5% of TV usage in May 2026), and a separate à la carte rental/purchase storefront. Households that already pay for Prime shipping are frequently getting this one for free without realizing it.
Paramount+ is the value play for CBS-adjacent live sports and news alongside a reasonably deep catalog, and bundling it with Showtime closes most of the gap with pricier premium-drama competitors.
Peacock punches above its subscriber share specifically around live sports windows. It posted a 10% month-over-month viewership increase in January 2026 driven largely by exclusive event coverage, making it a strong candidate for the “subscribe for the season, cancel after” approach rather than a year-round hold.
Apple TV+ has the smallest catalog of the major players by volume, but the highest ratio of critically decorated originals per title, which makes it a genuinely good fit for the rotate-in-for-a-month strategy and a poor fit as a full-time, only-service subscription.
None of these is objectively “the best.” The best one is whichever matches the answer you gave to question one in the decision framework below, and for most households, the honest answer is two of these plus one FAST platform, not four of these at once.
FAST Platforms Worth Actually Using
Not all free ad-supported platforms are created equal, and the category has matured enough that it’s worth naming names rather than treating “FAST” as one undifferentiated bucket.
- Tubi carries one of the deepest film libraries in the free tier, spanning several decades, and posted a 6% month-over-month viewership increase as recently as January 2026, evidence it’s converting casual browsers into repeat viewers, not just catching accidental clicks.
- The Roku Channel has held the single largest share of TV usage among free platforms for multiple consecutive months, built on a mix of licensed film content and its own original programming slate.
- Pluto TV replicates a live, linear-channel-guide experience inside a free app, genuinely useful for the “something’s just on” viewing mode that used to be cable’s core value proposition.
- PBS’s apps fill the documentary and educational gap that most FAST platforms don’t cover well, entirely free and without the ad load of the commercial FAST services.
The Legal Alternative Nobody Mentions: Your Public Library
This is the practitioner insight I give every client who’s frustrated about book, audiobook, or older-film access specifically, the kind of content that pushes people toward unlicensed “everything free” aggregators in the first place. A public library card, in most systems, unlocks Hoopla and Libby/OverDrive for audiobooks and ebooks, and Kanopy for a curated, ad-free film and documentary catalog including titles from major independent and arthouse distributors that rarely show up on commercial FAST platforms. All of it is fully licensed, free at the point of use, and funded through your existing tax dollars rather than a subscription. For anyone tempted by a book-piracy aggregator specifically, this is the direct legal substitute, same convenience, none of the legal or security exposure, and considerably better metadata and reliability than an unlicensed mirror site.
Common Mistakes Households Make When “Switching to Alternatives”
Three patterns show up in almost every subscription audit I run:
Mistake one: treating “cutting cable” as a one-time decision. The alternatives landscape changes every few months: a new bundle appears, a platform folds sports rights into its base tier, a FAST channel adds a licensing deal it didn’t have last year. A stack that was optimal in January can be meaningfully suboptimal by September.
Mistake two: subscribing to a live-TV streaming bundle to get one channel. If the actual goal is “I want ESPN” or “I want local news,” a $70/month full-channel bundle is frequently the most expensive way to solve a very narrow problem. Check whether the specific content is available through a standalone app first.
Mistake three: assuming free-with-ads means lower quality across the board. Ad load and catalog freshness vary by platform, but video quality on major FAST services is frequently indistinguishable from paid competitors at the technical level; the gap is discovery and on-demand precision, not resolution or reliability.
Comparing Platforms Beyond Movies and TV
“Digital media alternatives” increasingly extends past video. Music, audiobooks, and even long-form written content now follow the same subscription logic, along with the same temptation toward unlicensed shortcuts. The safest general rule carries across categories: a legitimate free tier (ad-supported music, library-card audiobook apps, publisher-run free article limits) will almost always cover casual use, while unlicensed “everything free” aggregators carry the same malware and legal exposure regardless of whether they’re distributing video, music, or text. If a service in this space is unfamiliar to you, a quick reverse-lookup, checking who actually owns and operates it, is worth the ninety seconds it takes every single time.
A Decision Framework for Choosing Your Stack
Rather than ranking platforms in the abstract, run your specific situation through these four questions in order:
- Do I want appointment viewing of specific new releases, or background content? Appointment viewing points toward SVOD. Background content points toward FAST.
- Do I need live sports or news? If yes, a live TV streaming service or a short-term single-league subscription is the only category that actually delivers this legally.
- How many people in the household actually watch different things? More than two distinct viewing profiles usually justifies a legitimate multi-profile or split plan rather than separate individual subscriptions.
- Would I watch this platform’s flagship content again next year? If you can’t name anything you’d watch again, that’s your cancellation candidate: swap it for a FAST equivalent before adding a new paid service.
Run this quarterly, not once. Catalogs and personal viewing habits both shift enough in three months to change the answer.
Mobile Viewing Has Quietly Changed What “Best Alternative” Means
More than three-quarters of all video content watched worldwide now happens on a mobile device, with the average viewer watching around 17 hours of online video per week, or close to 145 minutes a day. Monthly mobile data usage tied to this shift has jumped from roughly 4.9 GB to 23 GB per person over six years. That matters directly for how you should evaluate an “alternative”: a platform’s offline-download quality, its data-saver streaming settings, and how gracefully it degrades on a spotty connection are now practical differentiators, not nice-to-haves. If you’re mostly watching on a phone during a commute rather than on a living-room TV, weight your comparison toward download reliability and app performance over raw catalog size: the biggest library in the world doesn’t help if the app buffers every time you go underground.
The Ad-Tier Math Most People Skip
Ad-supported tiers have become the primary growth engine for nearly every major streaming platform, and the pricing gap between ad and ad-free plans is usually large enough to justify the ad load for most viewing habits. A typical ad-supported tier runs $3–$7 cheaper per month than the ad-free equivalent on the same platform. Over a year, that’s frequently $36–$84 back in your pocket per service, before you’ve changed anything else about your stack.
The honest trade-off is interruption frequency and, on some platforms, a smaller simultaneous-download catalog for offline viewing. For background or casual viewing, the same use case FAST platforms cover well, the ad tier is close to a strict downgrade in price with a manageable downgrade in experience. For appointment viewing of something you’re genuinely focused on, the ad-free tier’s premium buys back attention, and for many people that’s worth paying for on exactly one platform rather than all of them. Pick the one service where uninterrupted viewing matters most to you, and default to the ad tier everywhere else.
Digital Media Alternatives Beyond Video
The same legal-alternative logic extends to how people access music, podcasts, and audiobooks, categories that see their own version of “free everything” aggregator traffic. Ad-supported tiers of major music platforms cover casual listening at no cost, exactly the way FAST platforms cover casual video viewing. Podcasts are, with very few exceptions, already free and legal by design, which makes unlicensed “premium podcast” aggregators one of the more pointless piracy categories to encounter, since there’s rarely a legitimate cost being avoided in the first place. Audiobooks are the one category where a real price gap exists between platform subscriptions and library access, which is exactly why the Hoopla and Libby/OverDrive combination covered above is worth setting up before reaching for anything else.
Before You Subscribe: A Five-Point Checklist
Run any new platform, whether paid or free, through this before adding it to your stack:
- Name the specific content that’s pulling you toward it. A vague sense that “everyone’s talking about this platform” isn’t a subscription reason; a specific show, season, or event is.
- Check whether it’s available through a service you already pay for. Bundles and add-on channels inside existing platforms (like a premium channel folded into a live-TV bundle) frequently cover new content without a new standalone subscription.
- Confirm the free trial’s actual cancellation date, and set a calendar reminder for two days before it converts to paid. Forgotten trial conversions were one-third of the savings recovered in the case study above.
- Check current password-sharing and multi-user policies rather than assuming last year’s terms still apply; see the section above on how significantly this has shifted.
- Decide up front whether this is a rotate-in-for-a-month platform or a permanent addition. Platforms with sparse, seasonal release schedules are almost always better as the former.
A Short Case Study
One household I worked with earlier this year was paying for six services, two SVOD platforms nobody could name a recent watch on, a live-TV bundle they’d added for one specific sports season eighteen months prior and never canceled, and three “free trial” subscriptions that had quietly converted to paid. Running the decision framework above took about twenty minutes. The outcome: two SVOD platforms kept (one for adult viewing, one bundled with the kids’ plan they were already paying for), the live-TV bundle replaced with a single-month sports subscription for the specific league they actually followed, and the three forgotten trials canceled outright. Total monthly savings: just under $58, with zero loss of anything they were actually watching. Nothing about that outcome required a workaround. It required an inventory.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are free streaming sites like Putlocker clones actually illegal? Yes. Sites distributing copyrighted film and television content without licensing agreements are operating illegally regardless of how they’re branded or how many “mirror” domains they use, and they carry documented malware risk well above legitimate platforms.
What’s the cheapest legal way to watch live sports? Subscribe to the specific rights-holder (ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount+, or a live TV streaming bundle) only for the month your event airs, then cancel. This beats a year-round subscription for occasional viewers.
Is FAST streaming (Tubi, Pluto TV) actually free, or is there a catch? It’s genuinely free, funded by ad breaks placed at fixed intervals rather than a subscription fee. The trade-off is a rotating, ad-supported catalog rather than full on-demand control.
Do streaming bundles actually save money? Only if you’d subscribe to every service in the bundle individually anyway. Bundling into unused services isn’t a discount; compare the bundle price against your actual usage, not the platforms’ list prices.
Is legal subscription-sharing the same as piracy? No. Sharing a plan’s built-in multi-profile or multi-stream allowance among people who legitimately share the cost is different from circumventing a platform’s terms of service; major platforms have tightened enforcement specifically around the latter.
How many streaming services should the average household have? Streaming customers currently average about 2.5 paid platforms per household. That’s a reasonable benchmark; if you’re carrying more than that, a quarterly audit will usually surface at least one service worth cutting or rotating out.
What should I do if I already clicked something on a pirated streaming site? Update your device’s security software and run a full scan immediately, and check accounts tied to any payment or login information you entered on that site. This is the FTC’s standing guidance for suspected streaming-related malware exposure.
Is an ad-supported tier actually worth the savings? For casual or background viewing, usually yes: the price gap is often $36–$84 a year per platform, and the interruption cost is manageable. Reserve the ad-free tier for the one platform where uninterrupted, focused viewing matters most to you.
What’s the single fastest way to lower a bloated streaming bill? Run the five-point subscription checklist above against every service you currently pay for, starting with anything you can’t name a recent watch on. Forgotten free-trial conversions and unused live-TV bundles are consistently the two biggest recoverable costs in a typical household audit.
Quick Glossary
SVOD: Subscription Video on Demand; a flat monthly or annual fee for on-demand access to a platform’s library and originals.
FAST: Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television; no-cost, ad-funded platforms delivering licensed on-demand and live-channel content.
AVOD: Ad-supported Video on Demand; the ad-funded tier of an otherwise paid platform.
vMVPD: Virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributor; an internet-delivered live channel bundle functioning like traditional cable (YouTube TV, Fubo, Hulu + Live TV).
Cord-cutter: Someone who has canceled a traditional pay-TV subscription in favor of streaming alternatives.
Cord-never: Someone, typically younger, who has never subscribed to traditional pay TV at all.
Get the Quarterly Audit Reminder
The single habit that matters more than any platform choice in this guide is the quarterly review itself, and it’s the one thing people consistently forget to actually schedule. If you’d like a plain-text reminder every quarter with an updated checklist for auditing your own subscription stack, subscribe below and we’ll send it straight to your inbox, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Where This Leaves New and Growing Households
The framework above holds whether you’re a single-person household with one screen or a family juggling five profiles across three devices; the inputs just scale. A single viewer typically lands on one SVOD platform plus one FAST app and nothing else; a five-person household with mixed ages tends to land on two SVOD platforms (one general, one kids-focused), a legitimate split live-sports subscription for whoever follows a league, and heavy FAST usage for younger viewers’ casual watching. The mechanics don’t change between those two cases; only the number of line items on the spreadsheet does. What stays constant is the discipline of naming what each subscription is actually for before renewing it again.
The Bottom Line
“Streaming alternatives” in 2026 isn’t a search for a workaround anymore. The workaround era mostly ended when legal platforms closed the content and convenience gap. What’s left is a genuinely solvable budgeting problem: too many overlapping subscriptions, not too few legal options. Run the decision framework above once a quarter, lean on FAST platforms for casual viewing, subscribe to live sports only when you need it, and split costs formally where platforms allow it. That’s the entire strategy: no gray-area shortcuts required.
If you’re building out your own household’s media stack from scratch, our related breakdown of Disney+ alternatives is a good next stop for comparing family-focused platforms specifically.
