Reach120 vs Kaomanfen TOEFL: the 2026-format comparison, with its evidence attached

Who wrote this, and how to read it

Read on 2026-08-24, without an account, buying nothing and accessing no paywalled surface. Free allowances and prices change faster than pages like this one do, so treat every figure as dated evidence rather than a current quote.

• There is no score, no rating and no verdict. There are no star ratings in this page or in its structured data — Reach120 has no published review corpus, so a rating would be a number we made up.
• What Kaomanfen TOEFL does better is stated plainly, because a comparison that finds nothing good in the other product is an advertisement.
• Reach120 prices are not typed on this page. The pricing page is the only place they are stated, so there is one thing to keep correct rather than fourteen.

Reach120 and Kaomanfen TOEFL, side by side

The spine of this table is the six task types the January 2026 format introduced, because coverage is the one axis with checkable evidence: either a public page names the task or it does not. Everything else — free access, metering, price, scoring transparency — is quoted.

What Kaomanfen TOEFL does better

Three things, and the first has no equivalent here at all. Its mock is described as adaptive, which matters more than it sounds: the current Reading and Listening sections are multistage adaptive, and almost every third-party practice test in this set — Reach120 included — serves a fixed linear form instead. It publishes in Chinese for candidates preparing in Chinese, which Reach120 does not do. And it names all six current task types on its own public page, which most of this census still cannot.

Where Reach120 is different

Two real differences and one of them favours them. Their mock is described as adaptive, and that is not marketing decoration — the current Reading and Listening sections are multistage adaptive, while Reach120 and almost every third-party practice product in this set serve a fixed linear form. What Reach120 does instead is publish and explain: the questions, the answer keys, the transcripts and the sample responses sit in the page itself with no account, Reading and Listening practice is uncapped rather than rationed, and the method behind a score is written down at /methodology. Their free access is issued as three hundred daily places at a fixed hour, which is a queue rather than an allowance.

Different is not better in the abstract. The difference matters only if it matches what you are short of — time, money, feedback, or lessons.

Where Reach120 is weaker, in its own words: This page makes no case for its own product over the others. Where Reach120 is weaker: there are no taught video lessons, no human tutor review of a response, no coverage of any exam other than the TOEFL test, fewer free AI-scored submissions a day than PrepEx states, and no published scorer-versus-human agreement figure — the internal benchmark corpus is too small to publish as an accuracy claim, so it is not published.

Which one to choose

• Choose Kaomanfen TOEFL if what it does better is what you are short of. That sentence is above, unedited, and it is the whole reason this section can be brief.
• Choose Reach120 if you want to read the practice material and its answers before creating anything, and you want the four sections in one place with the method published.
• Choose both if the budget allows. They are not mutually exclusive, and nobody preparing for an exam owes one vendor loyalty.

Before either: Three things. The site never states who or what does the correcting — a person or a model — on any page we read, and that single missing sentence decides turnaround, consistency and what the feedback is worth, so ask before paying. Second, the authorisation claim is asserted without scope: no agreement, date or description of what is covered appears beside it, and a sentence about provenance is not a statement about how a response is scored. And third, the same mock page that advertises the 2026 rebuild also carries a line dating the change to July 26, 2023, so check which format the items you are served actually belong to.

Sources, and what we could not read

• the Kaomanfen TOEFL homepage, published in Simplified Chinese — https://toefl.kmf.com/, read 2026-08-24.
• its mock-test page, which is where the task list was read — https://toefl.kmf.com/mock, read 2026-08-24.
• its K+ membership page, which is where the free quota was read — https://toefl.kmf.com/spec/7, read 2026-08-24.

Kaomanfen TOEFL states the following about itself. These are their words, quoted, and this page does not verify them:

• "托福真题由 ETS 官方授权提供" — authentic TOEFL questions supplied under official authorisation from the test maker. That is their sentence, it carries no scope, no dated agreement and no description of what is licensed, and it is not restated as fact anywhere on this page.
• "全真自适应模考" — a fully authentic adaptive mock test.
• "100%还原新托福考试界面" — a 100% reproduction of the new TOEFL test interface — beside "学而思独家自研新题库，全面匹配托福26年改革", its own newly built question bank matched to the 2026 reform.

Reach120 vs Kaomanfen TOEFL: common questions

Is Kaomanfen TOEFL better than Reach120?

This page does not answer that, and no page published by one of the two products honestly could. What it gives you instead is the evidence to answer it yourself: what each states about free access, price and 2026 task coverage, quoted from the page it was read from on 2026-08-24, plus a plain statement of what Kaomanfen TOEFL does better — Three things, and the first has no equivalent here at all. Its mock is described as adaptive, which matters more than it sounds: the current Reading and Listening sections are multistage adaptive, and almost every third-party practice test in this set — Reach120 included — serves a fixed linear form instead. It publishes in Chinese for candidates preparing in Chinese, which Reach120 does not do. And it names all six current task types on its own public page, which most of this census still cannot.

What does Kaomanfen TOEFL cost?

This page states no Kaomanfen TOEFL price. No price for any paid product appears on the three pages we read on 2026-08-24 — no figure, no term and no currency symbol against anything purchasable. The one currency amount on the site is a stated value attached to a free membership pack, which is a claim about what something is worth rather than a price anybody is charged, so it is quoted where it belongs, beside the free tier, and not here. The pages loaded fully, so this is what the provider chose to publish rather than what we failed to read.

Can I use Reach120 free instead of paying for Kaomanfen TOEFL?

You can use a large part of it free and decide afterwards. Reading, Listening and Build a Sentence practice is free with no daily limit and no lifetime limit. Write an Email and Write for an Academic Discussion give a free account 3 AI-scored writing responses to start, then one more each day, up to 10 in total; Take an Interview has 3 AI-scored Take an Interview responses in total, for the life of the account; Listen & Repeat has 8 on the account, for life. Published questions, answers, transcripts, sample responses and PDF packs need no account.

Does Kaomanfen TOEFL cover the 2026 TOEFL task types?

Here is what we could establish rather than what we assume: All six are named on its mock-test page, in Chinese, grouped the way the current format groups them: Reading as "填词题、日常生活读、学术文章阅读" (Complete the Words, Read in Daily Life, Read an Academic Passage), Listening as "听答题、听短对话、听公告、听学术讲座", Writing as "造句子、写邮件、学术讨论" (Build a Sentence, Write an Email, Academic Discussion) and Speaking as "复读题、模拟面试" (Listen & Repeat, Take an Interview). It is one of a small number of pages in this census that name every one of the six, and the only one that does it in Chinese. That is the page naming them; no account was created to watch them run. A blank cell in the table on this page means we found no public statement, not that the feature is missing.

Who publishes this comparison?

Reach120 does, and Reach120 is one of the two products in it. That is disclosed at the top rather than buried, every competitor fact carries the URL and date it came from, and the section stating what Kaomanfen TOEFL does better is mandatory on every page in this set. Nothing here is sponsored and Kaomanfen TOEFL did not review it. If you believe a fact on this page is wrong or out of date, tell us and we will re-read the source.