Home › Editorial policy
Editorial policy
Most sites in this category disclose their funding model in small italic text near the top and move on. We'd rather give it a page.
How we're funded
Where a provider passes our review, we may link to it with a disclosed affiliate link, and we may earn a commission from that provider if you use it. That is the only way this site may earn money from a provider. We only use affiliate links for providers that have passed every applicable point of our standard, and every affiliate link is disclosed on the page where it appears.
As of 16 October 2026, we have no affiliate partners, and nothing on this site earns us money yet.
See our methodology for exactly how a pass/fail verdict is reached, evidence source by evidence source, and why nothing below this line can change it.
How affiliate links work here
Our commitments:
- A commission never affects a verdict. No company can pay to change a finding. A failing verdict against our published standard stays a failing verdict regardless of any commercial relationship, and payment never substitutes for a check we'd otherwise perform.
- A commission never affects order. Rankings are never sold, and no provider can pay to appear higher or be listed at all.
- Affiliate links are disclosed. Any compensated link is disclosed on the specific page it appears on — not only in a footer link or a separate policy page nobody reads, the way most of this industry's comparison sites currently do it.
- Passed providers only. If a provider stops passing our review, we remove its affiliate link.
- The Register's anonymous-aggregate policy for failing companies doesn't change for money. We will not accept payment to name a specific failing competitor, and we will not accept payment to suppress an already-public enforcement action from our named-enforcement index (once that's built).
Why this page exists
Our own research into this industry's existing comparison sites found a real, third-party-adjudicated example of the gap this page is meant to close: the National Advertising Division reviewed one major aggregator's "independent ranking" marketing claim and found it wasn't supported — its own scoring algorithm favored companies with a paid partnership, despite the site's public claim of impartiality. We'd rather over-disclose now than end up as a similar example later.
Corrections
If we get a fact wrong, we correct it and say so plainly on the page it appeared on, with the date and what changed — not a silent edit. See About for how to reach us if you've spotted something.