Methodology version 1.0.0, frozen 2026-09-22. This methodology was written and frozen before any vendor was scored. Criteria, weights and scoring bands must not be altered after scores are calculated in order to produce a preferred outcome. Any future revision requires a new version number, a visible changelog entry on /how-we-rate/, and re-scoring of every vendor under the new version.
Every vendor is scored against the same 8 criteria, summing to 100 points. Scores are whole numbers: our evidence does not support decimal precision, so we don't display any.
Principles
- No evidence is scored as zero for that criterion, not as a negative inference about the vendor's conduct.
- A vendor claim alone never earns full points on a verifiability criterion — only independent confirmation does.
- Scores are integers; no fractional points are awarded, since the underlying evidence does not support that precision.
- The same bands and evidence-gathering process are applied identically to every vendor, including LEOLABS.
- The methodology is published in full on /how-we-rate/ before scores are presented anywhere on the site.
Business Transparency 15 pts
Whether the vendor publishes a checkable business identity: a real trading name, a South African contact address or presence, working contact channels, and (if claimed) any business/company registration detail.
Testing & Documentation Disclosure 15 pts
Whether the vendor publishes any testing-related claims at all — named laboratory, certificate of analysis (COA), batch or report identifiers — regardless of whether those claims can be independently confirmed. This measures disclosure, not truth.
Independent Verifiability of Testing Claims 15 pts
Whether a third party (this review, or any member of the public) can actually attempt to verify the vendor's testing claim independently — e.g. a real, identifiable laboratory that can be looked up, a report ID format consistent with that lab, or a publicly viewable COA file — as distinct from an unverifiable assertion.
Policy Completeness (Shipping, Refunds, Terms, Privacy) 15 pts
Whether shipping policy, refund/returns policy, terms of service and a privacy policy are each published and specific enough to be meaningful (as opposed to absent or boilerplate placeholder text).
Research-Use & Regulatory Framing Clarity 10 pts
Whether the vendor clearly frames its products as research-use-only / not for human consumption, avoids implying medical suitability, safety, or regulatory approval, and does not make unsupported medical or legal claims.
Public Reputation Signals 15 pts
What independently checkable public reputation evidence exists (e.g. Hellopeter, Google, social/forum mentions), weighted by volume of evidence and by whether the vendor engages with negative feedback — not simply by star rating.
Website & Policy Reliability 10 pts
Whether the website functions reliably, policy pages actually load and are internally consistent, and there is no evidence of deceptive site behaviour (e.g. fake countdown timers, fake stock scarcity, fake review widgets).
Source Accessibility for Independent Review 5 pts
Whether the vendor's public-facing information (policies, claims, contact details) was reasonably accessible to this review's normal, access-control-respecting research process — rewarding vendors who make their claims checkable, without penalising legitimate access controls as if they were misconduct.