Editorial Standards
The full policy framework behind every rating on this site: how we maintain editorial independence, what our affiliate relationships cover, how we handle errors, and why placement cannot be purchased.
Published 2026-04-17 · Last reviewed 2026-04-17
Editorial Independence
No service has ever paid for placement, higher ratings, more favorable coverage, or exclusion from our comparisons on this site. Every rating and every ranking is determined by the editorial team following our published methodology — before any affiliate relationship is discussed. The review team and the business team operate separately; the review team does not know which services participate in the affiliate program at the time scores are assigned.
Affiliate Disclosure
DMCA Compare earns referral commissions when a reader signs up for a service through certain links on this site. We disclose this on every comparison page and below every outbound link to a service that is part of our affiliate network.
Affiliate participation is offered by some of the services we rate, not all. We add services to our comparison based on editorial fit, not affiliate availability — a service can be added without agreeing to affiliate terms, and we currently list services with which we have no affiliate relationship.
Affiliate status does not influence ratings. Rating changes in both directions occur on the 90-day review cadence regardless of affiliate relationship, and material rating drops have been applied to affiliate services in the past.
Rating Framework
Each service is scored on a 1–10 scale across six weighted dimensions. The overall score is a weighted average. Every overall score maps to one of five bands:
- 9.0 – 10.0
- Best-in-class across all or nearly all dimensions.
- 7.5 – 8.9
- Strong performer with identifiable trade-offs.
- 6.0 – 7.4
- Average performer, material weaknesses.
- 4.0 – 5.9
- Below average, significant gaps.
- Below 4.0
- Not recommended.
The six scoring criteria, their weights, and the full data collection process are documented on the methodology page.
Update Cadence
Every listed service is re-reviewed on a minimum 90-day cadence. Material service changes — pricing restructures, coverage changes, ownership transfers, or policy revisions — trigger an immediate review outside the scheduled cycle. The methodology itself is reviewed annually and versioned; every revision is logged with a date and description. Every article and comparison page displays a last-verified date so readers can assess freshness without relying on implicit trust.
Corrections Policy
Material factual corrections are logged publicly on the corrections page, dated, with an explanation of what changed and why. Silent updates — typos, formatting fixes, broken links — are not logged. To report a factual error, email [email protected]. We aim to respond to factual-error reports within 5 business days.
No Pay-to-Play
Services cannot pay to be listed, ranked higher, reviewed more favorably, or excluded from comparisons. Requests to remove a service for reasons unrelated to factual accuracy are declined and documented in the internal editorial log. A service may be removed if it ceases to operate, becomes unresponsive to evaluation, or falls below the minimum coverage threshold — never because of a business or legal request unrelated to those criteria.
Sources and Verification
Every statistic cited on this site links to a third-party source. A service's own internal data is never the sole source for a primary claim; where internal figures are used, they are labeled as such and supplemented by independent verification. The source selection process — including the quality hierarchy used to weight different source types — is documented in the methodology.