Methodology
How we rate
Every service is scored on the same 6 weighted criteria. Here is what each one measures, how the overall score is calculated and how we keep the ratings current.
The criteria and their weights
- Legal coverage25%
- Evidence & transparency20%
- Help to fix15%
- EU/EEA focus15%
- Price transparency & value15%
- Ease of getting started10%
-
25%
Legal coverage
How many areas of EU website law the check itself examines on a live site: (1) cookies and trackers before consent, (2) consent banner behaviour (reject option, prominence, tracking after reject), (3) privacy notice content, (4) provider information / imprint, (5) consumer-law duties of e-shops, (6) transport security (HTTPS/TLS), (7) accessibility. One credit per area examined by an automated check; half a credit for a generator, a separate paid add-on, a manual recording aid or an informational-only check. Score = 10 x credits / 7, adjusted by at most 1.0 for depth (consent states tested, pages crawled, storage types) or for areas reported only as provisional results.
-
20%
Evidence & transparency
Whether results come with verifiable evidence (lists of cookies and requests, screenshots, timestamps), a legal basis per finding, an exportable record (report, consent log) and a published method or known limits. 9-10: all four; 7-8: three; 5-6: two; below 5: one or none.
-
15%
Help to fix
How directly the service helps to remove a shortcoming: fix instructions per finding, generators for missing texts, an included consent banner that blocks scripts, or access to legal help. 9-10: several of these; 6-8: one or two; 3-5: general advice only; below 3: none.
-
15%
EU/EEA focus
Built around EU/EEA law (GDPR, ePrivacy, EU consumer law) and national rules of member states, EU establishment of the vendor or EU data storage, and the number of EU languages in which results or outputs are available. Single-country tools score below 5; vendors outside the EU lose up to 1.5 points.
-
15%
Price transparency & value
Prices published on the vendor's site with currency, VAT treatment and billing period; a useful free tier; cost for one typical SME website; no forced long contract. 10: free without relevant limits; 8-9: useful free tier and complete published prices; 5-7: published prices with gaps or contradictions; 2-4: quote only.
-
10%
Ease of getting started
Time and effort to a first result: a public web form without registration scores highest, an account or installation lowers the score, a command-line tool or sales call lowest. 9-10: public web form, no registration; 7-8: e-mail, account or plugin needed; 4-6: installation or sales-led onboarding; 1-3: command line only.
How scores are given
Each criterion is scored from 0 to 10, with one decimal place, based on the service’s public website, documentation and pricing pages, as listed in the sources of each review. The overall score is the weighted average of the criterion scores, rounded to one decimal. Stars are the overall score on a five-point scale, rounded to the nearest half star.
Worked example: LegisCheck.eu
9.0 × 25% + 9.0 × 20% + 6.0 × 15% + 8.0 × 15% + 8.5 × 15% + 9.0 × 10% = 8.3
| Score | Label | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0–10 | Outstanding | Leads the field on the criterion with few, minor gaps. |
| 8.0–8.9 | Excellent | Strong across the criterion; gaps are specific and documented. |
| 7.0–7.9 | Very good | Solid for most websites; some relevant areas missing. |
| 6.0–6.9 | Good | Useful within a narrower scope. |
| 5.0–5.9 | Fair | Covers the basics only. |
| below 5 | Limited | Major gaps for EU website compliance. |
Research notes
Scores are editorial, from 0 to 10 with one decimal, given by the publisher on the six weighted criteria above; the overall score is the weighted average of the criterion scores, rounded half up to one decimal. They are not user ratings and no user reviews, star counts or user numbers are used. All facts about each service come from its own public website (pricing, product, help-centre and legal-notice pages) read in 2026; no account was created, no form was submitted and no third-party website was scanned for this comparison. Prices are quoted exactly as published, with currency, period and VAT treatment where the vendor states it; where a vendor's own pages contradict each other, the entry says so. Where a fact was not published, the entry shows “Not published”. Readers can apply the criteria themselves: each description states what earns full, half or no credit.
Main parameters that determine the ranking
The list is ordered by the overall score described above, highest first. No other parameter influences the order. Filters and sorting on the ratings page change only what you see, never the published rank.
Update policy and dates
- Current edition
- Prices checked
- Review cycle
- At least every six months, and whenever a service changes its plans or features in a way that affects a score
Each review shows when its pricing was checked and links to the vendor’s pricing page. Vendors may correct facts by writing to hello@credibilidy.com with a public source; we update the review and its date when the source confirms the change.
What we do not do
- We do not publish user reviews or user star counts. All scores are editorial.
- We do not state prices, user numbers or features we could not find in a public source; those appear as “Not published”.
- We do not accept payment from vendors for a listing, a position or a score.
- We do not use affiliate links. Links to vendor websites carry only a referral tag (utm_source) that tells the vendor the visit came from this site; nothing about you is attached.
- We do not give legal advice. The ratings compare tools; they do not certify any website.