A genuinely large and long-running community strain database, but its homepage-disclosed sponsorship by a commercial seedbank (Azarius) and undisclosed advertising relationships with seed companies create an unresolved conflict of interest that the site does not address with any placement or methodology disclosure.
What it's really for Community reference database for cannabis growers to research strains, trace genetics, and find seed sources
What our grade covers The grade on this page is about Cannabis strain ratings and grow reports submitted by community users; seedbank and seed shop monitoring, not everything the site does.
Medium Scoring Confidence Mostly sourced, but a detail or two still needs a primary source, so the grade could shift slightly.
The homepage explicitly thanks "Azarius" — a commercial cannabis seedbank and headshop — for "enabling us to maintain the site," indicating a sponsor relationship with an industry vendor whose products appear in the database. Banner advertising for cannabis seed companies (including Royal Queen Seeds) is also present. Whether sponsorship or advertising buys favorable placement in strain rankings or seedbank listings is not disclosed.
Source →- Operating since
- 2005 (21 years) · source
- What it costs you
- Free to read The reviews are free to read.
- How they make money
- Funded by banner advertising from cannabis seed companies and direct sponsorship from at least one commercial seedbank (Azarius). No subscription or paywall for readers.
- What they do
- Maintains a community-built database of 39,700+ cannabis strains from 2,000+ breeders, with user-submitted grow reports, strain ratings, genetic lineage trees, and a seedbank/shop monitoring section. Users can search strains by flowering time, heritage, climate suitability, and availability. Reviews are submitted anonymously without email registration.
- What to watch for
- Does not conduct independent lab testing or hands-on grow trials. Strain data and ratings are entirely self-reported by the community, meaning breeders can influence their own entries. The seedbank monitoring section lists commercial shops without disclosing how shops are selected or whether any pay for inclusion. No formal review methodology is published.
- Composite score
- 2.00 / 5.00 → grade C-
How the grade was reached
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.
Evidence
- The homepage states 'Thanks to our friends from Azarius for enabling us to maintain the site,' disclosing that a commercial cannabis vendor sponsors site operations. Source: SeedFinder homepage →
- The site reports 39,756 strain entries from 2,077 breeders, with all data and grow reports community-submitted and anonymous — no staff testing or lab verification is described. Source: SeedFinder homepage →
- The seedbank monitoring section displays banner advertising for Royal Queen Seeds but provides no disclosure of listing criteria, paid inclusion, or affiliate arrangements. Source: SeedFinder seedbanks page →
- No methodology, conflict-of-interest, or advertiser-disclosure page was found at the expected paths (/en/info/, /en/info/about); the site does not publish how rankings or listings are determined. Source: SeedFinder info page (404) →