Our Methodology

Method1st ranks providers using published criteria, weighted scoring, and visible sources. When key information is not publicly disclosed by a provider, we label the gap rather than guessing or filling it with marketing language.

How we score

Each category has 5 scoring criteria with explicit weights. Criteria are chosen based on what matters most to buyers making a high-stakes decision in that category. Weights are published on every comparison page so readers can see exactly how the ranking is calculated.

Where we look

• •Official provider websites, help centers, and published documentation.
• •Publicly available licensing, registration, and regulatory filings.
• •Third-party review platforms and industry directories (treated as directional signals, not definitive).
• •Published press, industry reports, and credible third-party coverage.

What we do not do

• •We do not accept payment for rankings or allow providers to influence their scores.
• •We do not present unverifiable claims as fact. If a claim is company-stated but not independently verified, we say so.
• •We do not fill gaps with assumptions. When information is not publicly available, we label it as such.

How we handle gaps

Many providers do not publicly disclose all the information buyers need. Rather than penalizing providers for privacy or treating absence of information as a negative, we label gaps clearly and provide questions buyers should ask directly. This approach treats undisclosed information as a due diligence requirement, not a ranking penalty.

Updates and corrections

Every comparison page shows a last-updated date and reviewer attribution. If a provider's public information changes, we update the relevant comparison and note the change. If we make an error, we correct it and document the correction on our updates and corrections page.