Editorial policy

We only list providers that are either FCA-authorised, FSCS-protected, or independently verifiable through Companies House and a working payout history for our own testers. Anything else is out — even if the reward looks bigger.

For each provider we record a legal name, a Companies House number where applicable, and the date we last confirmed they're still operating. That's the block you see at the top of every provider page.

Every opportunity is claimed by a member of our team before it goes live. We record the sign-up flow, the time between signup and payout, whether the reward tracked automatically, and any friction along the way.

Every listing carries a 'Last reviewed' date and the name of the reviewer. If an offer hasn't been re-tested in the last 90 days we flag it as 'Needs re-check' and downweight its score until it's confirmed.

The overall score is a weighted average of five pillars: Ease of use (20%), Speed to reward (20%), Value for time (25%), Trust & safety (20%), and Support (15%).

The score is set editorially, then rechecked whenever a member reports a payout — a stream of confirmed payouts nudges the score up, a stream of failures nudges it down. Providers cannot pay to change it.

If a listing is wrong, we fix it and mark it as updated. Serious errors — anything that changed a member's decision — get a note in the change history and, where possible, a direct email to anyone who claimed the offer during the affected window.

Providers can flag inaccuracies through our contact page. We treat their reply as an input, not a veto.