Scoring Methodology
How we calculate editorial and trust scores. Published in full so readers can verify our evaluations.
Last updated: March 2026
Reviewed by: Marcus Webb, Editor-in-Chief
Overview
Every product we review receives two independent scores: an Editorial Score (how good the product is for its target user) and a Trust Score (how safe and transparent the product is). These scores are calculated using the weighted rubrics below. Scores are never influenced by affiliate commission rates. Non-partner products are scored using the same rubric.
Score Scale
- 9.0 — 10.0
- Exceptional. Best-in-class with minimal drawbacks.
- 8.0 — 8.9
- Very good. Strong choice for most users in the target audience.
- 7.0 — 7.9
- Good. Solid option but with notable tradeoffs or limitations.
- 6.0 — 6.9
- Adequate. Usable but significant concerns or gaps exist.
- Below 6.0
- Not recommended. Serious issues with safety, usability, or transparency.
Editorial Score — Exchanges
The editorial score for exchanges is a weighted average of the following factors:
| Factor | Weight | What we evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Fee competitiveness | 20% | Maker/taker fees, spread costs, withdrawal fees, hidden charges |
| Feature set | 20% | Asset selection, staking, earn, advanced trading, mobile app quality |
| User experience | 20% | Onboarding, interface clarity, beginner vs. advanced flow, support quality |
| Security & compliance | 25% | Regulatory standing, insurance, proof of reserves, incident history |
| Availability | 15% | Country support, deposit methods, fiat on-ramp options |
Trust Score — Exchanges
The trust score focuses exclusively on safety, transparency, and regulatory track record:
| Factor | Weight | What we evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory status | 30% | Licenses held, enforcement actions, jurisdictional compliance |
| Proof of reserves | 20% | Published attestation, audit frequency, independent verification |
| Security track record | 25% | Historical breaches, response quality, bug bounty program |
| Corporate transparency | 15% | Named leadership, public registration, financial disclosures |
| User fund protection | 10% | Insurance coverage, cold storage practices, withdrawal policies |
Editorial Score — Wallets
| Factor | Weight | What we evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Security model | 30% | Key management, open-source status, audit history, vulnerability record |
| Chain support | 20% | Number of supported networks, token coverage, NFT support |
| User experience | 25% | Setup flow, daily usability, mobile quality, browser integration |
| Extra features | 15% | Built-in swaps, staking, dApp browser, hardware wallet pairing |
| Cost | 10% | Price (hardware), swap fees, gas estimation accuracy |
Editorial Score — Tax Software
| Factor | Weight | What we evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Integration breadth | 25% | Number of exchange/wallet integrations, DeFi protocol coverage |
| Accuracy & handling | 25% | Correct cost basis, DeFi classification, edge case handling |
| Country support | 15% | Tax form generation, multi-jurisdiction reporting |
| User experience | 20% | Import flow, error resolution, report readability |
| Pricing & value | 15% | Free tier generosity, paid plan pricing, features per tier |
Source Standards
Scores are based on the following source types, in order of preference:
- Primary sources: Official product documentation, published fee schedules, regulatory filings, court records, government enforcement databases
- First-hand testing: Direct product usage by the editorial team, including account creation, transactions, and support interactions
- Independent audits: Third-party security audits, proof-of-reserve attestations, bug bounty reports
- Reputable reporting: Established financial news outlets, investigative journalism, and regulatory agency press releases
We do not use social media sentiment, anonymous forum posts, or marketing claims as scoring inputs.
Score Verification Dates
Each product review page shows a "Last verified" date indicating when the editorial team last confirmed the data points underlying that score. We aim to re-verify all scores at least quarterly, and immediately following material events (enforcement actions, security breaches, major product changes).
Score Change Log
When a score changes, we document the reason in our corrections and changes log. This includes the old score, new score, date, and the specific event or data point that triggered the change.
Affiliate Independence Guarantee
Our scoring rubric applies identically to affiliate partners and non-partners. As evidence: several non-partner products score higher than partner products in their category. We do not accept payments to adjust scores. If a partner product's quality declines, its score declines. If we discover that a score was calculated using inaccurate data, we correct it publicly in the corrections log regardless of partnership status.
Questions
If you believe a score is inaccurate or have data that should affect a product evaluation, please email corrections@tools4crypto.com. We investigate every submission.