Our Research Methodology

Overview

Our evaluation methodology was developed in partnership with researchers from Stanford University's Consumer Economics Department and has undergone rigorous peer review. The methodology is designed to be reproducible, transparent, and resistant to manipulation by providers or third parties.

Every provider evaluation follows the same standardized four-phase process, regardless of company size, market presence, or any other factor. This ensures consistency and fairness across all 156,000+ providers in our database.

Phase 1: Data Collection

We aggregate data from 23+ verified sources to build a comprehensive profile of each provider. Our data sources fall into four categories:

Official Records

• State licensing board databases (all 50 states)
• Insurance verification systems
• Workers' compensation records
• Building permit databases
• Court records and civil judgments
• BBB complaint histories

Consumer Feedback

• Verified customer reviews (identity-confirmed)
• Post-service satisfaction surveys
• Complaint resolution tracking
• Net Promoter Score data

Industry Sources

• Trade association membership records
• Manufacturer certification databases
• Continuing education records
• Industry award and recognition databases

Direct Verification

• Phone verification of business operations
• Physical address confirmation
• Website and online presence audit
• Mystery shopper interactions (for select providers)

Phase 2: Verification

Raw data is meaningless without verification. Our research team independently confirms all critical data points before they enter our scoring system.

License Verification

We verify that all claimed licenses are current, in good standing, and cover the services offered. We also check for disciplinary actions, suspensions, or restrictions that providers may not disclose.

Insurance Verification

We confirm that providers carry adequate general liability insurance, workers' compensation (where required), and any specialty coverage needed for their trade. We verify policy limits, not just existence.

Background Screening

For providers seeking our highest certification tier, we conduct criminal background checks on ownership and key personnel. We follow EEOC guidelines and consider factors like recency, relevance, and rehabilitation.

Review Authentication

We use proprietary algorithms and manual review to identify and filter fraudulent reviews. Our false-positive rate is less than 0.3%, verified through annual audits by independent researchers.

Phase 3: Weighted Scoring

Our algorithm applies weighted scores across 47 quality indicators, grouped into six categories:

Legal Compliance (25%)

Licensing status, insurance coverage, permit history, regulatory compliance, legal judgments, and complaint resolution.

Customer Satisfaction (25%)

Verified review ratings, complaint frequency, resolution rates, repeat customer rate, and referral patterns.

Professional Standards (20%)

Trade certifications, manufacturer authorizations, continuing education, industry association membership, and award recognition.

Business Stability (15%)

Years in business, ownership consistency, employee retention, financial indicators, and market reputation.

Service Quality (10%)

Workmanship assessments, warranty offerings, follow-up practices, and communication quality.

Pricing Transparency (5%)

Estimate accuracy, change order frequency, billing clarity, and price competitiveness.

Phase 4: Peer Review

All methodology updates undergo external academic peer review before implementation. Our review panel includes:

• Consumer economics researchers
• Statistical methodology experts
• Building trades professionals
• Consumer protection advocates

We publish our methodology changes, including rationale and supporting research, in our annual transparency report.

Rating Scale

Providers receive an overall Trust Score on a 0-100 scale:

• 90-100 (Excellent): Top-tier providers meeting the highest standards across all categories
• 80-89 (Very Good): Strong performers with minor areas for improvement
• 70-79 (Good): Solid providers meeting core requirements
• 60-69 (Fair): Providers with notable gaps or concerns
• Below 60: Not recommended due to significant issues

Appeals Process

Providers can appeal their ratings through a formal process. Appeals are reviewed by a separate team not involved in the original evaluation. We resolve 95% of appeals within 30 days, and 12% result in rating adjustments.

Data Security

We maintain SOC 2 Type II certification for our data handling practices. Provider and consumer data is encrypted at rest and in transit, and we undergo annual security audits by independent firms.