The first one is about access and price. Someone is comparing packages before they have bought anything, and wants to know whether the instruction is worth it versus a notes-and-question-bank package. That is a real question, and the list above is the honest answer to it: Schweser and AnalystPrep if you would rather read than watch, IFT if you want video but a different instructor, the curriculum itself if you would rather not have a summary between you and the source.
The second one is not about the videos at all. It comes from candidates who already bought a package, like the teaching, and are still behind — because a video library ordered by the curriculum does not tell you which video is tonight. That search looks like a search for a content alternative, but no amount of extra content answers it. What is missing is a schedule.
It is worth being precise about the tools here, because the two searches get conflated. Mark Meldrum does publish a study planner, and it takes your registered exam date: you tell it how difficult you find the content and how many hours a week you have, and it works out where those hours should go. What it publishes about itself is an allocation of hours, and the signal it allocates on is a difficulty rating you supply before you have studied the reading. That is a different output from a dated task list, and if your problem is "I have 140 hours left and eleven readings I have not opened", the hour budget is not the part you are missing.
This is the one place exclam.ai belongs on this list, and only this place. It ships no CFA content and is not an alternative to anyone's teaching. It takes the materials you already own and have the right to use, plus the date you registered for, and produces the plan: this reading today, this review today, these mocks in three weeks — with a quiz behind every reading you upload, including the ones no vendor has quizzed for you. Keep whichever content vendor you chose. Use exclam.ai for the days.