Methodology · scoring v1.1.0
How we rank commission software
We rank tools per segment, on facts we can verify, with weights we publish. Nothing else goes into the score.
The rules
- Verified facts only. A fact counts only if we read it on the vendor's own public pages (website, pricing, documentation, official marketplace listing). Every fact shows its source and verification date.
- Unknown is not "no". A fact we could not verify is shown as "Not verified", never as a missing capability. In the score it simply earns no points: only what a buyer can confirm publicly counts, and a vendor raises its score by documenting a capability on its own pages.
- Segment fit is declared by the vendor. A tool is ranked in a segment only if the vendor positions itself there.
- Minimum evidence. A tool is ranked only if at least 50% of the segment's weighted criteria are verified; otherwise it is listed as "not ranked".
- No pay-to-rank. We have no commercial agreement with any vendor today. Future referral fees will be disclosed and will never be an input to the score.
- No ratings or reviews. We do not publish star ratings, invented tests or third-party review scores as facts.
How the score is computed
Score (documented fit) = Σ weight of criteria verified as met ÷ Σ weight of all criteria for the segment, out of 100
"Criteria verified" shows how much of the segment's total weight we could verify either way (met or explicitly not supported). Ties are broken by verified share, then alphabetically.
Why not ignore unknowns entirely? Because vendors mostly document what they do, not what they lack: excluding unknowns would push almost every tool close to 100 and the ranking would stop telling buyers anything.
Criteria and weights by segment
| Criterion | Small business | Mid-market | Enterprise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public pricing | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Free trial | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Free plan | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Retroactive tiers | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Credit splits | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Clawbacks | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Multi-currency | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Audit trail | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| ASC 606 amortization | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Quota management | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| SPIFFs / contests | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Rep earnings dashboard | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Dispute workflow | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Approval workflows | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Salesforce integration | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| HubSpot integration | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| NetSuite integration | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| QuickBooks integration | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Workday integration | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| ADP integration | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Snowflake integration | 0 | 1 | 2 |
A weight of 0 means the criterion is not relevant for that segment (for example QuickBooks for enterprise teams).
What each feature means
- Retroactive tiers: the vendor documents support for paying all revenue at the rate of the tier reached.
- Credit splits: one deal credited to several people by share.
- Clawbacks: recovery of commission when revenue is reversed.
- Audit trail: a log of changes to plans, data or payouts.
- ASC 606 amortization: capitalization and amortization of commission costs under ASC 340-40 / IFRS 15.
- Integrations: a native connector documented by the vendor, not a generic API.
Freshness
We re-verify every vendor's facts each quarter. A profile whose oldest fact is more than 90 days old is flagged; beyond 120 days it is removed from search engines until re-verified. A comparison page is indexed only if both tools have at least 10 verified facts.
Corrections
Vendors and readers can report an outdated or wrong fact through our contact page. We correct verified errors and update the verification date.