Methodology
How we grade the graders.
One rubric, applied the same way to everyone, with the math shown. If we ever take money, it gets disclosed here first. This page is the product.
The five dimensions
Each reviewer is scored 0 to 5 on five dimensions. The weighted average maps to a letter grade. No entry is hand-graded; change a score and the letter recomputes.
Does the site take money from the very entities it ranks? Pay-for-placement, vendor-funded data, and affiliate commissions all pull this down. The less the ranking can be bought, the higher the score.
What is the ranking actually built on? Hands-on testing scores highest, then verified first-hand reviews, then opinion or popularity surveys and self-reported figures, then pay-to-rank, which scores lowest.
Is the methodology published, specific, and reproducible? Can a reader see how a given rank was reached, or is it a black box?
Are commercial relationships, sponsorships, and affiliate arrangements disclosed clearly and near the rankings themselves, rather than buried?
How hard is it to game? Controls against fake reviews, solicited reviews, and vendor gaming raise this; an open box anyone can stuff lowers it.
From score to letter
What we grade, and what we don't
We grade the method: how independent the ranking is from the money of those it ranks, and how much real evidence sits underneath it. We do not claim any specific ranking is factually wrong, and we do not re-test the underlying products or firms ourselves yet. A high grade means the method is trustworthy, not that every placement is perfect.
How sure we are
Every card carries a scoring-confidence level, because not every entry is equally nailed down. High means the facts and the grade are checked against primary sources. Medium means mostly sourced, with a detail still to confirm. Low means an initial assessment from public information, treated as provisional. We would rather show you our uncertainty than hide it.
You will notice there are currently no Low-confidence entries. That is on purpose, not an oversight: if we cannot yet stand behind a grade, we hold the entry back and keep verifying rather than publishing it with a shaky score. So if a site is not on our report card, we either have not graded it yet or its method is not public enough to grade it fairly, and you can tell us what is missing. "Low" stays on the scale for entries in progress, so the filter is honest about being empty for now. We would rather under-promise on coverage than show you a grade we do not trust.
Types of review site
The grade always measures the same thing, but a review site's type tells you what its rating is even made of. A hands-on test and a pay-to-play directory are not doing the same job, and each type has its own way of being trustworthy or being gamed. Here is the lens we use.
Good for Tests products itself, so the verdict rests on evidence rather than vendor claims or popularity. The hardest type to fake.
Watch for Slow and selective — it can't test everything — and is often funded by affiliate links on what it recommends, which can nudge picks toward what pays.
Good for Standardized, repeatable, and directly comparable across contestants. The most objective type when the test is public.
Watch for Only measures what the test measures, can miss real-world quality, and contestants can optimize to the test. Some let vendors opt in or pay.
Good for Combines many critics, smoothing out any single reviewer's bias into a quick read on the consensus.
Watch for Only as good as the reviews it pools, and the weighting (and which critics count) is often hidden.
Good for Human experts apply judgment and explain their reasoning, weighing context a raw score cannot.
Watch for Usually paid through affiliate links, so 'best of' lists can tilt toward products that pay a commission, and a better non-partner option may be left off entirely.
Good for Real user experiences at scale, which can surface problems experts miss and is hard for any one party to fully control.
Watch for Easy to game with fake or solicited reviews, skews to extremes (love it or hate it), and the headline average can hide which reviews were filtered out.
Good for Applies one consistent set of criteria across a whole field, which is handy for a structured comparison.
Watch for Often built on reputation surveys or self-reported data rather than outcomes, so 'best' can mean 'best known' — and award or seal-licensing fees can blur the line.
Good for Comprehensive coverage of providers in one place, convenient for finding your options.
Watch for The order is usually pay-to-play: who sits on top reflects who paid for placement or leads, not who is best. Treat the ranking as advertising.
Good for Reviews are often tied to a verified booking or purchase, which makes them harder to fake.
Watch for The site earns money on the transaction, so placement and ranking are tuned for conversion and revenue, not neutral merit. Reviews are a feature, not the mission.
Sources
Every claim on a reviewer's page links to a source: a primary document (a company's own methodology page, an SEC or IRS filing, a regulator's rule) wherever one exists, and reputable reporting otherwise. When a figure is self-reported and unaudited, we say so on the page.