Last reviewed: 15 September 2026

Home › Our methodology

Our methodology

Most comparison sites in this industry disclose a general independence claim once, in small print, and move on. This page does the opposite: exactly what gets checked, where the evidence comes from, how often it's re-verified, and the specific structural rule that keeps a pass/fail decision separate from money — stated plainly enough that you can hold us to it.

What "reviewed" means on this site

Every page here that makes a factual claim carries a "Last reviewed" date at the top, generated from the same record of when that page's content was actually checked — it can't quietly drift out of sync with what the page says. On the Register specifically, that date marks when the page's aggregate numbers and passing directory were last confirmed accurate. Underneath that page-level date, every individual company assessment carries its own two dates — when it was actually checked, and a scheduled re-check, typically within six months and sometimes twelve for lower-risk categories — regardless of whether anything about that company changed in between. A company doesn't stay on the passing directory by default; it stays there because it keeps getting re-verified.

Between those full re-checks, every listed or previously-failing company also gets a lighter, automated weekly "delta scan" — a narrower search for genuinely new developments only (new litigation, a new regulator action, a licensing change, the company shutting down, an ownership change), not a full re-run of the standard. If a delta scan finds something material, it triggers a full re-verification before the next public update to that entry, rather than sitting until the next scheduled re-check date.

The evidence a verdict is actually built on

Every point on our published standard is checked against a specific, named, primary source — never a company's own marketing claim, and never a secondary review site's summary of one. Depending on the category being checked, that means:

• The CFPB's own public Consumer Complaint Database — complaint volume, category, and response pattern, pulled directly rather than taken from a company's self-reported count. See that page for how to pull the same data yourself.
• FTC and state attorney general litigation and enforcement records, plus a documented self-regulatory finding (such as a National Advertising Division decision) where one exists on the public record.
• A state's own credit-services-organization registration or bonding registry — not a company's claim to be registered.
• NMLS Consumer Access, for a lender or its underlying partner bank in the debt-consolidation-loan category.
• NFCC/FCAA's own membership directories and the IRS's own Tax Exempt Organization Search, for nonprofit credit counseling agencies.
• A company's own current, public fee schedule and contract terms, read directly rather than summarized secondhand.

See our standard for exactly which source backs which point, category by category.

Grading is commercially blind

A pass or fail here is reached by checking a company against the standard above — nothing else. No payment, sponsorship, or existing or potential commercial relationship has ever been part of that check, and none is intended to be. As of this page's last review, that's not an abstract promise: the Register's own stat row shows zero paid placements, on any entry, in any category.

The site owner has set a direction to eventually monetize the Register's passing directory through disclosed affiliate links — the same "vetted, then monetized" model long used by larger comparison sites. Three rules govern that direction, whether or not it's live yet on any given page:

1. A commercial link is only ever added to a company that has already passed every point on the standard. It is never a route around the standard, and passing is never conditioned on a company's willingness to participate in one.
2. Whether a company participates in a commercial arrangement plays no role in the check itself — research and grading happen identically either way, with no visibility into commercial status during vetting.
3. Any live commercial relationship is disclosed clearly on the specific page it appears on, not in a footer or a separate policy page — see our editorial policy for the full disclosure commitment.

A disclaimer can't fix a wrong verdict about a real company — only a genuinely independent check can. That's why this page exists: not to ask you to trust a claim of independence, but to show exactly what would have to be true for it to be false, so you can check it yourself.

What this site won't do to look more "independent"

We don't publish a numbered "#1 Best" ranking or star ratings — a pass/fail against a fixed, published standard doesn't produce a clean ordering, and forcing one would invent a precision that isn't there. We also don't name a specific failing company publicly; see the Register for why that's a deliberate policy, not a legal hedge.