Editorial policy and how we rate providers
Editorial team · updated
Sources we accept
In order of trust: the provider's current documentation, pricing page and official repositories; its blog, changelog and marketplace listings; review platforms (at least three where they exist, never averaged silently); official directories and registries. We never use memory, unsourced wikis or sales conversations as a source. A price needs the vendor page and a dated snapshot in our dataset; a capability needs the product page and the documentation.
How facts are labelled
Each fact is marked official docs, official, other, third-party confirmed, vendor claim or not verified. Vendor claims are written as claims. A fact we could not verify is shown as unknown: it is left out of the score rather than counted as zero, and every score is shown with its coverage: the share of the methodology backed by verified facts.
Writing rules
We describe only work we did, in the past tense: "we checked the pricing page on 23 September 2026". We never claim hands-on use of a product: no test sends, no delivery measurements. Code snippets in guides follow the provider's documentation and are marked as illustrative: we did not run them.
Neutrality
Scores are computed from data and the published weights. Commercial relationships, if any exist, are considered only after a score is fixed. Every provider goes through the same checklist; none is used as the reference card for the others, and none is featured outside what the data supports.
Corrections
Report an error to contact@sensaria.ch with the page and the source that shows the correct fact. We re-check it against the vendor's page and publish the change in the corrections log.