Rated-parties policy · v1.0

Conflicts, money, and right of reply

A rating that comparatively judges companies is only worth reading if you know what the rater is paid for and by whom. This page states it, and commits to stating it again on every individual rating rather than relying on you to have found this page.

Every rating carries its own disclosure line

This is the commitment that matters most, and it is the one most ratings do not make. Every published rating carries a positive, itemized statement of the commercial relationship between Q-Advantage and that specific vendor — not a general policy statement standing in for one. It reads either:

“Commercial relationship: none. [Vendor] has not purchased data, reports, or any other product from Q-Advantage, and had no access to or influence over this assessment.”

“Commercial relationship: [Vendor] purchased [product] on [date]. It had no access to or influence over this rating, its tier, or its timing.”

A rating whose disclosure line is missing does not render. That is enforced in code, not by editorial habit — the validator refuses a rating with an empty statement, and the build fails rather than publishing one.

What a rated party can and cannot buy

Can buyData subscriptions and reports, on the same terms as any other customer.
Cannot buyA rating, a tier, a change to a tier, the timing of publication, advance sight of its own result, or any influence over the methodology.
Cannot buyPlacement, promotion, or preferential treatment anywhere on this property. There is no sponsored tier and no paid listing.

What cooperation gets a vendor, and what it does not

Vendors are invited to provide deeper access to their implementations. What that buys is access to the process, never a better result: advance notice of the criteria — which are public anyway — and a pre-publication window to correct factual errors.

It does not buy a higher tier, a delay, or a veto. A vendor that declines is still rated on the three tracks that need no cooperation, and lands in Unavailable only if there is genuinely nothing public to audit. Cooperation is an upgrade to the evidence, never a condition of being treated fairly.

Right of reply and corrections

A rated party may dispute any finding at any time. A dispute we accept is published on the rating it concerns, alongside the finding, rather than resolved quietly. A correction is marked as a correction and dated; findings are not silently edited.

If a source we cited has changed or been withdrawn, the finding that rested on it is re-checked and either re-sourced or removed. A finding whose evidence no longer exists does not stay up on the strength of having once been true.

Independence

Q-Advantage does not resell, integrate, implement, or take commission on any rated product, and does not accept payment from a rated party in connection with a rating. Where the founder holds any interest that could bear on a rated vendor, that interest is disclosed on that vendor’s rating in the same per-vendor line described above — and if it cannot be disclosed, the vendor is not rated.

How this rating is produced

Assessments are researched and written with AI assistance and reviewed by a named human who takes responsibility for them; every rating carries that byline. No finding is published without a primary source that was actually retrieved, and the retrieval date is printed next to it. AI assistance is a tool in the research, never the author of record.

Why this is a per-vendor line and not a blanket assuranceA general statement that no payment influenced any rating is easy to write and impossible for a reader to check. It tells you nothing about whether a commercial relationship exists with the specific vendor whose rating you happen to be reading — which is the only question that actually matters at the moment you are reading it. A general assurance is not a disclosure. The disclosure is the per-vendor line.

How a rating is made·Dispute a finding ↗