Reviews · methodology v1.0

No reviews published yet

When a vendor is assessed, its write-up appears here: what was examined, what was found, what was not assessed, and the source behind every claim.

The commitment

What every review will contain

Published in advance, because it is harder to quietly drop a section you have already told people to expect.

A finding per dimension

All ten, including the ones not assessed. Omitting a dimension would let a partial review read as a complete one.

A source behind every claim

Each finding carries the document it rests on and the date it was retrieved, so a reader can check it rather than take it on trust.

Limitations, on every review

Including a favourable one. A review that lists no limitations has not been checked hard enough.

A commercial-relationship line

Stated per vendor, on that vendor's own page — never a general assurance standing in for one.

A named byline and a date

Reviews are written by a person who takes responsibility for them, under a stated methodology version.

Any dispute we accept

Published alongside the finding it concerns rather than resolved quietly.

Why there is nothing here yetNo vendor has been assigned a tier. Ratings publish when the assessment work behind them is complete — not before, and not partially.
The ratings are not published yet

The criteria are public so you can judge the bar before anyone is measured against it.

If you are choosing between post-quantum suppliers, or you are one and want to know how you will be assessed, get in touch. We will tell you when there are results to read.

A vendor in the pool, or think you should be? Cooperation gets you advance notice of the criteria and a pre-publication window to correct factual errors. It does not buy a better result.