Methodology
How we review IPTV providers
The research process, evidence labels and scoring rules behind every review.
The review process
- Step 1:
Research
We start from the provider’s official website and any pages it links to for pricing, policies, support and device information.
- Step 2:
Source collection
Each relevant page is recorded with its URL, source type and the date we accessed it.
- Step 3:
Provider information
We extract specific, checkable statements (prices, trial terms, counts, devices, support routes) and keep exact wording where it matters.
- Step 4:
Independent verification
We check what we can without relying on the provider: whether pages say what is claimed, whether figures agree across pages, whether policies exist, and how claims compare with other sources.
- Step 5:
Testing where possible
Where we have hands-on access, we test streaming, guide data, sports and devices, and publish what was tried, what was not, and the limits. Providers we have not tested are scored from published information only.
- Step 6:
Scoring
Evidence-backed categories are scored out of 10 using the weights and caps below.
- Step 7:
Editorial assessment
We explain what the evidence means, who a provider may suit, and who may prefer another.
- Step 8:
Last checked system
Every review shows the date it was last researched. We only change it after real research.
- Step 9:
Corrections
Credible corrections are investigated and fixed, and material changes are noted. See the corrections policy.
- Step 10:
Updates
Reviews are revisited when we gather new evidence or receive a correction. No fixed schedule is promised.
Four evidence states
This distinction is the core trust mechanism of the site. It appears on every review and in the comparison.
- Provider claim
- Something the provider states, usually on its own website. We cite it but do not treat it as fact. Marketing numbers such as channel counts stay in this state unless we can check them.
- Independently verified
- Supported by evidence we gathered or an independent source: a direct observation of what a page says on a date, a policy that exists or does not, or a result from our own testing. Observing that a provider claims something is not verification that the claim is true.
- Editorial assessment
- Our interpretation of the evidence. It is opinion informed by evidence and is always shown separately.
- Not verified
- Information we cannot currently confirm. We say “Not independently verified” rather than fill the gap.
The /10 scoring system
The score is an editorial opinion out of 10. It is not a customer rating, and the site shows no star ratings or review counts. The overall score is the weighted average of the categories that have enough evidence.
| Category | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing & Value | 14% | Clarity and completeness of published prices, currency, plan terms and what each plan includes. |
| Transparency | 14% | Whether claims are specific, consistent, sourced and free of unsupported superlatives; whether the operator is identifiable. |
| Content Information | 10% | How specific and internally consistent channel and library information is. |
| Streaming Quality | 14% | Measured playback stability and picture quality. Requires hands-on testing. |
| Device Compatibility | 8% | Specific, named device and app support, with setup information. |
| Sports | 6% | Verified sports coverage, not category labels. |
| VOD | 5% | Verified on-demand library depth and organisation. |
| EPG | 5% | Verified programme-guide accuracy and catch-up behaviour. |
| Support | 8% | Documented, reachable support channels and verified response. |
| Setup | 5% | Documented onboarding and verified setup experience. |
| Policies | 6% | Availability and clarity of refund, terms and privacy documentation. |
| Overall User Experience | 5% | Overall experience of using the service. Requires hands-on testing. |
| Total | 100% |
Score bands
- 9.0 – 10Independently verified and strong across the category.
- 7.0 – 8.9Well documented and substantially confirmed by independent evidence or testing.
- 5.0 – 6.9Documented by the provider and plausible, but not independently confirmed. Provider-claim-only evidence is capped at 6.0.
- 3.0 – 4.9Thin, vague, unsourced, or partly contradictory information.
- 0 – 2.9Misleading, absent, or seriously problematic information.
Rules
- Insufficient evidence is not zero. A category without enough evidence is shown as “Insufficient evidence” and left out of the average.
- Provider-claim-only evidence is capped at 6.0. Going higher requires independent verification or testing.
- Provisional scores. A score is marked provisional if scored categories carry less than 70% of total weight, which is the case for providers scored from published information only. A hands-on test can complete the framework; the review then states how many sessions the score rests on.
- Reviewer’s judgement. Category scores are the reviewer’s judgement. Where a hands-on test is published, each score states what it rests on, such as the number of sessions, and the review lists what was and was not tested. Facts the reviewer attests but cannot publish proof of are labelled that way.
- Tester’s rating. Where we publish a hands-on test, the tester’s own overall rating may be shown as an opinion. It is separate from the evidence-based score and does not change it.
- Contradictions count. Conflicting figures on the same provider’s site lower Transparency and Content Information.
- No invention. We never invent uptime, buffering, server counts, infrastructure details, reviews or ratings.
Independence and featured placement
Scores follow this methodology and are never adjusted for a provider. Featured & recommended placement is chosen by the site owner, may reflect a relationship with the provider, and does not change a score; relationships are disclosed on the relevant review. See About.