How we research and compare
Our comparisons describe what services offer against criteria we set before looking at any candidate. We do not currently publish ranked lists or scores.
Last updated September 14, 2026
Principles
- Criteria first. Each category’s criteria are fixed and dated before candidates are assessed. Changing them means reassessing every candidate and logging the change on our corrections page.
- Genuine alternatives. A comparison includes at least three real, relevant alternatives, and we explain who we left out and why.
- Qualitative, not numeric. We do not publish scores or star ratings. If we ever introduce scoring, we will publish the rubric, weights, missing-data rules and the evidence behind each score first.
- Missing information is not a zero. If a company does not publish something, we say “not publicly disclosed” or “not verified.”
- No paid order. Commercial relationships never change the order or content of a comparison. Our current comparison lists are unordered. An ordered list, or a “best overall” label, is published only when a consistent comparison supports it.
- Qualified review for tax and financial guides. These stay unpublished until a named, qualified reviewer has checked them.
Evidence labels
- Verified
- Directly observable in the cited source: a price shown on a page, a policy term, a regulation’s text, or a finding in a published study.
- Brand-reported
- What a company says about itself — for example hair origin, quality, experience or data practices. We have not independently confirmed it.
- Our judgment
- An editorial assessment, shown with the basis for it.
A source that mentions a brand is not evidence that the brand is good. Citations are placed next to the specific statement they support.
Disclosures
If the publisher has worked with a business, the pages that recommend or evaluate that business state exactly what the relationship is, before the first recommendation or link. The relationship does not change a business’s position in a comparison. Any future sponsored or affiliate link will be labelled and marked rel="sponsored".
Criteria by category
How we compare zodiac reading websites
Criteria fixed on September 14, 2026.
If a service does not publicly state something (price, data use, method), we record it as “not publicly disclosed” rather than scoring it down to zero or guessing.
| Criterion | What we look at | Evidence used | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reading type and tradition | Which tradition the reading follows (Western tropical, sidereal/Vedic, Hebrew-calendar, other) and what inputs it needs. | The service's own public pages and sign-up flows, checked without payment. | Describes what a service says it does; it is not a test of whether an interpretation is meaningful to a given reader. |
| Explanation of methods and sources | Whether the service explains how a reading is produced (zodiac system, house system, calendar, texts relied on) and links to its sources. | Public method, about and FAQ pages. | Citing a historical or religious text supports a discussion of tradition. It does not show that a modern website interprets it correctly. |
| Price transparency | Whether free and paid features, prices and renewal terms are shown before payment. | Prices displayed on public pages on the check date. | Prices change; every price carries its check date. |
| Privacy | What personal data (birth date, time, place, name) is collected, and what the privacy policy says about sharing and retention. | Published privacy policies. | We read policies; we do not audit data practices. |
| Sample usefulness and user experience | What a reader can see before paying and how clearly results are presented. | Public pages and free flows tested only with fictional data, without payment and without sending messages. | Small, unpaid checks; not a controlled study of reading quality. |
How we compare wig brands
Criteria fixed on September 14, 2026.
Unstated specifications or policy terms are recorded as “not publicly disclosed.” We do not infer durability, comfort, shedding or hair origin from marketing copy or photos.
| Criterion | What we look at | Evidence used | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction and specifications | Stated cap construction, hair type (human or synthetic), lengths, density and colour options. | Product and collection pages. | Specifications are brand-reported. We have not handled or worn the products. |
| Fit options | Cap sizes, custom-fit options and fitting appointments. | Product pages, FAQs and appointment pages. | Fit is individual; availability of an option is not a measure of fit quality. |
| Price and value for a stated buyer | Listed price ranges for comparable hair types, assessed separately for budget, mid-range and luxury human-hair buyers. | Listed prices on the check date. | Value depends on how long a wig lasts, which we could not measure. |
| Returns and customisation restrictions | Return windows, restocking fees, and whether customised or worn items can be returned. | Published refund and shipping policies. | Policy text only; we did not test a return. |
| Support and evidence from actual use | Contact routes, appointments, care guidance, and any independent evidence from real use. | Contact and care pages; independent sources where available. | No hands-on product test has been completed for this edition. |
How we assess help with a 1031 exchange
Criteria fixed on September 14, 2026.
A role, credential, fee or protection that is not publicly verifiable is recorded as “not verified.” We compare like roles only: a qualified intermediary is not compared with a tax adviser or a broker.
| Criterion | What we look at | Evidence used | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verified role and credentials | The exact role (qualified intermediary, exchange specialist working with a QI, CPA, attorney, broker) and any credential, checked against the issuing body where possible. | Issuer directories, licensing lookups, and the professional's own pages. | A credential shows training or membership; it is not a guarantee of outcomes. |
| Service scope and hand-offs | What the professional does, what they do not do (such as tax or legal advice), and who holds exchange funds. | Service pages, engagement descriptions, and disclaimers. | Public descriptions can differ from a signed engagement agreement. |
| Pricing transparency | Whether fees or fee structures are published. | Public pricing pages on the check date. | Many providers quote per transaction. |
| Fund protection by the QI | Segregated or qualified escrow/trust accounts, fidelity bond and errors-and-omissions coverage, and state registration where required. | The QI's own disclosures and state regulator pages. | Coverage amounts and account structures must be confirmed in the exchange agreement. |
| Communication process and independently supported experience | How deadlines are tracked and communicated, and experience claims that an independent source can support. | Process descriptions; independent sources only for experience claims. | We do not publish transaction totals or outcomes that cannot be verified. |
How we assess merchant cash advance offer reviews
Criteria fixed on September 14, 2026.
If a reviewer does not disclose how it is paid or what happens to submitted data, we say so. We do not treat an undisclosed item as favourable.
| Criterion | What we look at | Evidence used | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership and compensation disclosure | Who runs the service and whether it earns money from funders, brokers, or the business owner. | About, partner and terms pages. | Undisclosed arrangements cannot be detected from public pages. |
| Review methodology and cost coverage | Whether the review covers net proceeds, total repayment, fees, estimated APR or equivalent cost measure, payment schedule and reconciliation. | Published method descriptions, calculators and sample outputs. | A low factor rate alone does not make an offer fair or affordable. |
| Contract risk coverage | Whether the review flags personal guarantees, confessions of judgment, stacking restrictions, default triggers and prepayment terms. | Published descriptions of what is reviewed. | Only a licensed attorney can give a legal conclusion about a contract. |
| Explanation quality, privacy and price | Clarity of explanations, what documents or data are requested and how they are used, and what the review costs. | Privacy policies, consent language and pricing pages. | Policy text only. |
| Routing into new funding | Whether the reviewer routes business owners toward new financing it is paid to arrange. | Site flows, consent language and partner disclosures. | Routing to new offers is not wrong in itself, but it is a conflict readers should know about. |
Updates
Every page shows its publication and update dates and the date its facts were checked. When a fact changes materially, we update the page and log the change on the corrections page.