Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 22 | 25 | Entity-level affiliate disclosure on top comparison pages is the most granular of any legacy site in the audit. -3 for older pages with less granular disclosure that have not been updated. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 14 | 20 | Methodology page exists and enumerates selection criteria. -6 for criteria not weighted numerically; ranking not reproducible from the published methodology. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 13 | 20 | Author bylines present; some link to bios. -7 for inconsistent MD/DO attribution — clinical content sometimes bylined to PharmD or RN without parallel MD reviewer attribution. |
| Provider verification rigor | 11 | 15 | Some pharmacy classification present. -4 for verification depth uneven across providers; state board citations sometimes present, sometimes inferred. |
| Pricing transparency | 9 | 10 | Pricing detail genuinely best in class among Tier B sites. -1 for pricing on a small number of pages being from provider marketing rather than real-cart. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 10 | 10 | Per-page review dates verifiable. Corrections log linked. |
| Total | 79 | 100 |
Editorial findings — strengths
- Entity-level affiliate disclosure on top comparison pages is the most granular of any legacy site in the audit — the only Tier B site that consistently names which providers are commercial partners.
- State-level Medicaid and insurance coverage detail is genuinely best in class.
- Per-page review dates verifiable; corrections log maintained.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Selection rubric is enumerated narratively but not weighted numerically; the ranking is not reproducible from the published methodology.
- Clinical content occasionally bylined to non-MD authors without MD reviewer attribution.
- Pharmacy verification depth is uneven across recommended providers.
Adjudication note
One-point discrepancy. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 79/100. Signed off May 20, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews