How we rank, what we could not verify, and what changed this month

This is a comparison site funded by referral fees, and two positions in our ranking are sponsored. That combination only works if we are specific about what we check, what we do not, and where the commercial relationship touches the page. So here it is.

The scoring model

Five weighted criteria: credentials on staff (25%), fee transparency (25%), guarantee terms (20%), client experience (20%) and regulatory record (10%). Each is scored out of 100 and the weighted result becomes a score out of 10.

The score is computed from the criteria rather than typed in, so nobody can adjust a headline number without moving the thing underneath it.

Why most firms currently show no score

Because we have only completed three of the five criteria.

Credentials, fee transparency and guarantee terms can be assessed from published disclosures — who is on staff, whether a real number is quoted, what the refund is actually tied to. We have done that work.

Client experience requires complaint-pattern analysis across BBB, Trustpilot and CFPB filings. Regulatory record requires primary sources: the FTC case database, state attorney general filings, court records. Neither is finished.

Our scoring code returns no score unless all five criteria are populated. So the cards show no score, and they will keep showing no score until the work is genuinely done. A number implies research, and publishing one before doing it would be the exact behaviour this site exists to push back on.

Why there are no star ratings either

BBB and Trustpilot both publish ratings for most of these firms. We have not carried them across, because our own rule is that a rating requires a named, linked source and a date it was read — and those figures move weekly.

A stale 4.8 presented as current is a small lie that undermines everything else on the page. The stars stay off until we can cite them properly.

What we will not publish

Allegations we cannot corroborate. There are claims circulating online about litigation and regulatory action involving firms in this category. We checked what we could and found the sourcing to be low quality; in one case, a source that checked the FTC's own database directly could not corroborate a widely-repeated enforcement claim.

Repeating an unverified allegation about a named company is a legal exposure and an editorial failure at the same time. Our regulatory notes currently record that the review is outstanding, which is less satisfying than a verdict and more honest than inventing one.

Where the money touches the page

Positions one and two are sponsored placements. That is set out in the advertiser-disclosure bar at the top of every ranking page, and the trust bar reports the number of sponsored placements alongside everything else.

Everything from position three down is ordered on what we can verify. No firm can buy a score or a "best for" label.

We also list drawbacks for sponsored firms on the same terms as everyone else. Our current number one publishes no fee range, no refund window, and has no BBB profile we could locate — all three appear on its card and in its review, because a paid position that reads as flawless is worthless to you and, eventually, to us.

What is next

• Secret-shopper calls to every listed firm, using the same script and the same scenario, so fee transparency is measured rather than inferred.
• Complaint-pattern analysis to populate the client experience criterion.
• Primary-source regulatory review to populate the last criterion and to replace the placeholder regulatory notes.
• Sourced ratings with dates, so the stars can come on.

Until those are done, this site publishes less than its competitors. That is the intended trade.