A ranking method built on visible evidence.
How firms enter a shortlist, what influences order, which claims we do not make and how material changes are handled.
Updated 13 October 2026 · Public-source comparison
Useful evidence over decorative scores
The guide uses official service descriptions and published examples to explain advertised capability. Recommended scenarios and outputs are briefing suggestions, not claims that a provider completed those exact assignments. No hands-on testing or independent audit of client results is claimed.
Service fit
The firm must publicly offer intelligence, investigations, diligence, market analysis or strategic risk work relevant to the page.
Evidence depth
We look for case material, team credentials, published methods, corporate records and other signals that support positioning.
UK and decision relevance
We assess UK presence or client relevance, jurisdictional reach and whether the capability is useful for the page’s intended decision-maker.
Different provider models
Some sector lists include custom-research advisers, managed investigations and analytics platforms. The comparison identifies the relevant model and asks buyers to confirm whether they are purchasing software, a data subscription or an analyst-led project.
Timing and fees
Publicly evidenced timelines should be attributed to their source. Any editorial planning range is labelled as an assumption, not a provider SLA. Fees are not invented; the guide explains scope factors to compare in proposals.
Review and corrections
Material changes to services, ownership, office footprint or evidence may change inclusion or order. Documented corrections are reviewed through the corrections process.