How We Rate Integrations
Every score in the catalog is an editorial verdict from our project work. This page lays open how the numbers are made and where we earn money.
The scale: 1 to 5, one decimal
A 3 is solid and production-ready. A 5 is the reference in its role. We hand out no courtesy fives: a row of top marks reads as fake to readers and to Google alike, and real weaknesses pull real criteria down. Usercentrics pricing costs points. So does the setup effort of GTM Server-Side.
Criteria follow the tool's role
Each tool gets three to four criteria, all framed so that higher is better. We judge a data warehouse on scalability and EU data sovereignty, a consent platform on legal certainty, a tagging layer on data quality. One uniform grid across 36 tools and 11 categories would only manufacture false comparability.
The overall score is a mean
The overall score is the mean of the criteria you see on the page. Nothing is added in, nothing hidden. Where a criterion carries extra weight, the weight is shown next to it and the score is the weighted mean of those visible values.
EU-first as a scoring axis
We score from DACH practice: EU data sovereignty is a criterion of its own, not a footnote. US tools like BigQuery or GTM honestly lose points there and stay recommended where the job needs them. EU-first for DACH, pragmatic internationally.
Who reviews, and when we re-score
The verdicts are written by Juri Saloid, founder and managing director, based on the setups we have built and run for clients since 2019. Every tool page names the reviewer and the date of the last assessment. We re-score on relevant product or pricing changes, at the latest after twelve months.
Commercial relationships
With some vendors we are a certified partner and earn a commission on licences. That is stated on every affected tool page directly below the score, and it does not change the numbers. Tools with no business relationship carry exactly that as a note: no commission, no partnership.
Editorial verdicts, not user reviews
The scores are not aggregated user ratings and do not pretend to be. There is no star widget to vote on and no self-issued aggregateRating in the markup. One named editorial verdict, nothing more. That is less number and more liability, which is the point.
Sources and assumptions
Claims about hosting, pricing models, and certifications are backed by vendor documentation where possible; the sources sit on the respective tool page. So do the assumptions behind the verdict, such as traffic band or team setup. If an assumption does not match your situation, the verdict transfers only in part.
The reviews in the catalog, sorted by category and score.
To the integrations catalog →