Compare · Media & entertainment
Who reviews media & entertainment, and can you trust them?
Films and games, home of the score aggregators. Here is every review site we track in this category, graded head to head.
| Grade | Review site | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | Grades: its standardized camera and lens test reviews A rare reviewer that earns its authority: in-house, hands-on camera tests against a published, reproducible studio scene, with paid content kept separate and labeled. |
| 2 | A- | Grades: its hands-on tech reviews and scores Hands-on tech journalism with real testing and disclosed affiliate links; by its own policy, commissions and ads don't dictate scores, but review depth varies by category. |
| 3 | A- | Grades: its 5-star tech reviews and buying guides A long-running hands-on tech reviewer with a published testing method, but its "best of" picks ride on the same affiliate links it earns commissions from, which it discloses. |
| 4 | B+ | Grades: its 1-100 editor reviews of gadgets A veteran tech publication that hands-on tests gadgets with a published ethics statement, while earning affiliate commissions on the products it recommends. |
| 5 | B+ | Grades: its hands-on hi-fi and AV star ratings A genuine hands-on testing operation with real test rooms and walled-off ad sales; just remember it earns affiliate commission on the gear it rates highly, which it discloses. |
| 6 | B+ | Grades: its age-and-content ratings for kids' media Independent age-and-content ratings for families, behind a metered paywall. |
| 7 | B | Grades: its 0.0-10.0 album scores and 'Best New Music' A staff-written music critic with a signature 0.0-10.0 score and "Best New Music" badge; editorial-funded, not label-paid, though some note that corporate ownership and a new paywall have changed the indie ethos it was built on. |
| 8 | B | Grades: its instrumented road tests and 'of the Year' awards Real instrumented testing and a published award process, but it is ad-supported by the same automakers it reviews, which critics say creates a conflict of interest. |
| 9 | B | Grades: its game and entertainment reviews A hands-on games and pop-culture site whose first-hand reviews are credible, but it grades creative works, not the vendors it covers, and critics warn its new owner Valnet rewards SEO clicks over depth. |
| 10 | B | Grades: its hands-on game reviews scored on 10 Hands-on staff reviews on a transparent 10-point scale, but it's an ad- and affiliate-funded outlet, and its independence was famously tested by the 2007 Gerstmann firing, which Gerstmann later said stemmed from advertiser pressure. |
| 11 | B- | Grades: its crowd-average film ratings from members A cinephile crowd's taste rather than a quality test, but refreshingly not for sale. |
| 12 | C+ | Grades: its Top Critic Average of game reviews A cleaner game-score aggregator than most, now owned by a company whose own outlets it counts. |
| 13 | C+ | Grades: its hands-on game reviews and scores Mostly big-budget games scored above 7, with buy links that double as the business model. |
| 14 | C | Grades: its Tomatometer share-of-positive-critics score It counts how many critics liked a film, not how much, and PR firms have been caught gaming it. |
| 15 | C- | Grades: its 0-100 Metascore aggregating critic reviews A clean idea undercut by a hidden weighting and a parent that monetizes what it scores. |
| 16 | C- | Grades: its crowd-average book ratings The default home for book ratings, but it's an Amazon-owned open platform with little user verification, and reporting shows it can be swamped by review-bombing from fake accounts. |
| 17 | C- | Grades: its weighted-average 1-10 user title ratings An opaque popularity vote that gets review-bombed by opening weekend. |
Columns are the five rubric dimensions, scored 0-5, with each column's weight shown in its header; independence and evidence carry the most, 30% each. See the full methodology. Each row also shows a scoring-confidence chip (how sure we are of that grade) and a type tag; hover any chip for what it means.