Frequently asked questions

Your query is normalised into a canonical company name, then used to run a set of targeted web searches across review platforms, court and regulator databases, newsrooms and filing archives.

Promising pages are fetched and reduced to clean text. That text — never our own opinion — is passed to an analysis step that extracts ratings, recurring language, notable comments, complaints, company replies, legal matters and press items, each tied back to the URL it came from.

Neither. There is no index of our own and no archive of scraped pages. Every report is built on demand from live retrieval, which is why a report generated today can differ from one generated last month.

Retrieval is done through a managed crawling service that honours robots directives and rate limits, and we do not bypass paywalls or logins. Where a source can't be read, it is left out rather than guessed at.

Candidate pages must match every meaningful token of the company name in the page title or URL before their data is accepted. Near-miss profiles — a similarly named local business, a subsidiary, a defunct listing — are discarded instead of blended in.

Review and employer platforms for ratings and customer or staff sentiment; courts and dockets for litigation; regulators and agencies for enforcement, safety and labour records; investor filings such as 10-Ks and 8-Ks for what the company itself discloses; company newsrooms for official statements and replies; and reputable news coverage for context.

Yes. Where a primary document exists — a filing, a docket entry, a regulator record, an official statement — it takes precedence over commentary about it, and it is the link we cite.

No. Accreditation is a paid membership status, not a rating, so it is shown as a sourced status (Accredited, Not accredited, or Not found) with a citation, separately from any letter grade or star rating.

An empty section means nothing verifiable was found for it in that run, not that nothing exists. Smaller and private companies commonly have thin review, court and filing footprints.

No. Every numeric or letter score in a report is reproduced from the platform that published it, with its own scale, review count and source link shown alongside it. We do not adjust, weight or rescale another platform's rating.

Where an aggregate is shown it is a plain average of the published platform ratings that were found and matched to the company, normalised to a common scale so a 4.2/5 and an 84/100 can sit side by side. It is a description of what platforms report — not a verdict on the company.

Comments, complaints and descriptive words are classified as positive, mixed or negative from the language of the quoted source material itself. The filters on a report count those classifications so you can read only one side, and the counts always sum to the items retrieved.

Automated retrieval and analysis can misread or miss things, and platform ratings can be gamed or stale. Treat a report as a starting map: open the cited primary source for any claim that matters before acting on it.