How we keep our verdicts independent.
This page explains who decides what we publish, how every article is labeled, how affiliate and paid relationships work, and what happens when we get something wrong. It also covers something most publications never have to explain: our two editors also take on commissioned research. Here is how we keep those two jobs apart.
What companies can and cannot buy
When a company commissions YTC, it pays for research time, testing, and editorial production. It does not pay for a score, a verdict, or a favorable outcome. Every commissioned piece is labeled “Commissioned.” The verdict remains YTC’s. The client receives reuse rights to the published piece but does not receive approval over the score or removal of negative findings.
A commission can buy
- Research time and hands-on testing
- Editorial production of the published piece
- Reuse rights to the published piece: you can share and cite it
A commission can never buy
- A score, a verdict, or a favorable outcome
- Approval over the score, or the right to edit the published piece
- Removal of negative findings
Commissioned FinTech Trust Index assessments are not yet available. Current offers are on Work with Us.
Six rules behind everything we publish
Our readers use our reviews to decide where to spend money and whom to trust. These rules exist to make sure the verdict they read is the one we actually reached.
Labeled by evidence
Every scored review is labeled Independent, Commissioned, or Research-based, so you always know how we know.
Money never buys a verdict
Affiliate commissions, advertising, sponsorships, and commissioned fees never influence a score.
Two editors, scored separately
Both editors score every dimension on their own before they discuss anything.
Same rules for everyone
Every product is scored under a published framework: one for AI tools and apps, one for fintech. Within each, the same caps and the same right of reply apply, whether or not a company has paid us.
Mistakes fixed in the open
When we are wrong, we correct it and say so. Scores are re-verified and dated.
Named people accountable
Every verdict has an editor’s name behind it. We are not an anonymous content operation.
Who is responsible for what we publish
Oscar Mwangi
Founder & Managing Partner
Leads our African Tech reporting and our commissioned research partnerships. Co-edits and co-scores reviews.
Diana Nadim
Co-Founder & Executive Editor
Leads coverage of enterprise SaaS and applied AI. Co-edits and co-scores reviews.
Oscar and Diana together are responsible for every scored review on the site. Nobody outside the editorial team can approve, change, or remove a score. Guest contributors are edited by us and do not decide our verdicts; see Contributors.
Editors who also consult: how we separate the two jobs
The two people who score our reviews are also the two people who run commissioned research for companies. That is a real conflict risk: a paying client could expect a kinder verdict from the people who took the fee. We do not think a disclosure line is enough, so these are the specific rules that govern the overlap.
Before testing: advice only
On commissioned work, we may help a company sharpen the market question its product should answer. This advice concerns the question and the framing. It never concerns the result.
Testing begins: the line is drawn
Once testing starts, there is no more narrative advice, no preview of findings, and no discussion of what the score might be. From here, the score reflects what we find, flaws included.
Scoring: two editors, independently
Each editor scores every dimension alone, before discussion. Any dimension where our scores differ by 2 points or more is re-reviewed with the evidence side by side. The published caps then apply, exactly as they would for any other product.
Publication: labeled, with a right of reply
The piece is labeled Commissioned at the top of the page. The company gets the same right of reply as anyone else, and a score is never negotiated.
Consulting can cover
- Choosing the market question and audience the piece should address
- Scoping, timing and access to the product for testing
- How the finished, published piece can be shared and cited
Consulting never covers
- The score, the dimension scores or the caps
- Whether a flaw we found is included in the piece
- Any promise of a positive verdict or outcome
The safeguards that protect you
A framework fixed in advance
Dimensions, weights, and caps are published in our review methodology and FinTech methodology and applied identically to every product.
Fees tied to the work, not the outcome
Payment covers research and production. It never buys a score, a verdict, or a positive outcome, and a fee is never contingent on how a product scores.
Visible labeling
Commissioned pieces carry the “Commissioned” label at the top of the article and a “Commissioned” pill on cards and listings.
An unpaid baseline
We also review products that never paid us, under the same framework, so you can compare Commissioned and Independent scores.
Withdrawal and what it means for you. A company may withdraw a commissioned piece before publication; a fee applies and grows as the work progresses, and a withdrawn piece is never published. Because of this, the commissioned pieces you see are ones the company chose to publish, which is exactly why each one is labeled. We may still cover the product independently, using only our own testing and public information, never the company’s confidential material.
What these rules do not eliminate. We are a two-person editorial team, and no separate standards editor sits above us. Our safeguards are procedural, and we publish them so you can hold us to them. If you think we have fallen short, tell us.
How we label what we publish
Every scored review carries exactly one of three labels. All three are scored under the same framework for their category, with the same caps and the same two editors.
Based on our own hands-on testing. We chose to test the product ourselves, and no company asked for or paid for the piece.
Based on our own hands-on testing, and a company asked for the piece and paid for the research. Labeled at the top of the article and on cards and listings.
Independent desk research, not hands-on tested. Built from official documentation, third-party tests, and user feedback, with every claim linked to its source. FinTech Trust Index scores are never research-based.
Not scored
Guides, explainers, and African tech ecosystem stories. These are not scored and are not product verdicts. Anything that carries a score or a product verdict carries one of the three labels above.
How we are funded, and what that never touches
Affiliate links
If you buy through some links, we earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Commissions never influence a verdict or a score.
Advertising and sponsorship
Scores are never influenced by advertising relationships or sponsored partnerships. If a product we have reviewed later advertises with us, its score is not revisited unless the product itself has materially changed.
Commissioned research
Companies can pay us to research and publish an agreed piece, labeled “Commissioned.” They cannot buy the score. Details are on Work with Us.
Free access and review units
Free access to a product does not guarantee a favorable score. When vendor-provided information is used, we cross-reference it against third-party sources and attribute it clearly.
How we know what we say we know
- Hands-on reviews state how many tests we ran, which version we tested, and when. Third-party evidence checks our results and never replaces them.
- Material claims are cross-checked against independent sources. Anything we cannot verify is labeled “claimed, not verified”.
- Research-based reviews link every claim to its source. We do not repackage press releases.
- Before we publish a dimension score below 5, apply a cap, or make a factual allegation of misconduct, deception, or hidden charges, the company has 7 days to respond. Material corrections are reflected in the score, and we note when a company declined to respond.
- Scores are re-verified at least every 6 months and sooner after major changes. Every update is date-stamped, and older reviews are labeled as possibly out of date.
When we get it wrong
Report an error
Use our contact form and choose “Correction or feedback”. Include the article URL and what needs fixing. We aim to correct factual errors the same day.
Dispute a score
If you believe a score is incorrect or outdated, contact us with your evidence. We respond within 48 hours. Evidence changes scores; pressure and payment do not.
When a correction changes what a reader would conclude, we update the article and note the change with a date rather than quietly editing it.
How we use AI in our work
Our test results, scores, and verdicts come from our own testing and judgment. AI tools may help with research, transcription, and editing, but an editor is responsible for every published claim and checks it against its source. We do not use AI output as evidence of how a product performs, except when the AI tool is itself the product we are testing.
Guest authors and expert contributions
- Pitches are reviewed by the editorial team, and every accepted piece is edited for accuracy, sourcing, and clarity.
- Contributions are unpaid, and placement cannot be bought.
- Contributors must disclose employment, ownership, investment, affiliate relationships, sponsorships, and other conflicts of interest related to the companies or products they discuss.
- Contributors remain responsible for originality, accuracy, and sourcing. Read the Write for Us guidelines.
Read how our scores are built
See the frameworks behind the verdicts, or tell us where you think we can do better.
AI & apps methodology FinTech methodology Contact the editors