Editorial standards

Transparent by design.

A credible comparison site should make a clear distinction between tested facts, provider claims and commercial relationships.

Scoring framework

Our sample model weighs privacy and security at 35%, performance at 25%, usability at 20%, value at 15%, and transparency at 5%. A production site should retain test logs, dates, software versions and network conditions for every measured result.

Privacy and security

Review encryption protocols, kill-switch behavior, DNS and IPv6 leak protection, logging policy, audit history, ownership, jurisdiction and incident response.

Performance

Test multiple nearby and long-distance locations at several times of day. Publish baselines, medians and the testing date instead of presenting a single best-case number.

Usability and value

Assess setup, app consistency, accessibility, support quality, simultaneous device limits, introductory price, total prepaid amount, renewal price and refund restrictions.

Affiliate disclosure

Some outbound links may be configured as commercial or affiliate links. Compensation must never determine rankings, scores or conclusions. Clearly label affiliate links and use appropriate link attributes.

Corrections

Product details can change quickly. Add a visible correction channel and date-stamp every review. Material changes should trigger a re-review rather than a silent edit.