Public methodology
Our analysis combines editorial criteria, commercial transparency and continuous revision. We do not accept payment for scores or verdicts.
We select relevant offers and review the seller identity, checkout route, pricing disclosures, and other information publicly available at the time of review.
We compare seller claims with publicly available documentation where possible and flag details that cannot be independently confirmed. A seller disclosure is not, by itself, proof that a claim is true.
We assess the clarity of disclosed terms, checkout information, listed support channels, refund policy, and potential additional costs. We do not claim to have tested support unless the review explicitly says so.
We publish benefits, limitations, the right user profile and the commercial disclosure - explicitly, on every review.
Prices, guarantees and offer details can change on the manufacturer's side without notice. We periodically revisit reviews, but the official page always overrides anything stated here.
Every reviewed product is rated 0-10 on five weighted criteria. The overall editorial score shown on each review (out of 5) is the weighted average of those five ratings divided by two. The score reflects disclosure quality and buying conditions - not clinical effectiveness, which we are not positioned to test or verify.
Hard-cap policy: when a product's core sales claim is factually false or contradicts basic, settled science (for example, a claimed disease cure, a claim to predict independent random events, or a fabricated scientific mechanism), we do not let the weighted average absorb that failure - we cap the score directly and, in the most serious cases, remove the product from the catalog rather than publish a middling grade. A weighted average alone can't fail a product hard enough for that kind of claim, so we don't rely on it alone.