Methodology
How we test, score and rank dating sites.
Every score on this site comes from a written test, a published weight and a rule we can be held to. This page is the whole system: what we test, how we score it, how scores become positions, and what we refuse to let influence any of it.
The short version
Reviews of dating platforms are usually written from the outside: a press release, an app store listing, and a guess at which one sounds modern. We do it the slow way instead. A person on our team joins the platform with a real profile, uses the free tier until it runs out, and writes down what actually happened — then two editors score those notes against four published criteria.
That produces a number, and the number produces an order. Because both steps are written down, you can trace any position on this site back to a specific judgement about a specific platform. If you disagree with a score, you can point at the criterion and say so, which is the only kind of disagreement worth having.
What that means in practice
- Every platform is signed up to and used on its free tier
- Scores are locked before commercial conversations
- The weighting is published, not implied
- Criticisms are never removed from a review
How we fund the site, and the firewalls around it, are set out in our editorial standards.
Step by step
The six-step testing process
The same six steps in the same order for every platform, whether it is the site we recommend first or the one that finishes last. Nothing is reviewed from a press release, and no score is ever supplied by a partner.
We build the shortlist by hand
Candidates come from platforms adults actually name — not from whoever emailed us. Every site on a ranking has to be reachable, active and 18+ only before it is tested at all.
We sign up as real people
A real profile, real photos, real answers to real prompts. No corporate test accounts, because platforms show test accounts a different product to the one you see.
We use the free tier until it runs out
We log exactly where the paywall begins: whether messaging is included, how many likes or messages a day, and what a normal week of casual dating actually costs here.
Two editors score independently
Each criterion is scored out of ten against written notes from the testing period. Where the two scores disagree by more than a point, we return to the notes and resolve it in writing.
Scores are locked, then published
Rankings are finalised before any commercial conversation. No partner can buy a position, a score, or the removal of a criticism — including the site we recommend first.
We re-test every month
Pricing, paywalls and moderation tools change quietly. We re-check each platform monthly and date every page, so you can see how current the judgement is.
8
platforms tested in full
6
weeks per review cycle
4
weighted criteria
0
paid placements
Every review is signed by the editor who tested the platform and dated with the month we last verified its pricing. Where a fact cannot be confirmed — member counts are the usual culprit — we say so instead of estimating, because a comparison built on invented numbers is not a comparison at all.
The scoring system
Four criteria, weighted and published
Each criterion is scored out of ten against written notes. The weights below are fixed across every platform and every list on this site — they are not adjusted to flatter a favourite or punish a competitor.
Value on the free tier
35%Half of what a casual dating site promises is meant to happen before you pay, and most of it disappears the moment you try to reply to someone. We score the free experience on one question: can an ordinary adult reach another person here without entering card details? Messaging that is included scores highest; a tier that only allows browsing is treated as a trial, not a free site.
Scored down when messaging sits behind a paywall, daily limits are too low to be usable, or the advertised price is an introductory rate that doubles on renewal.
Ease of conversation
25%We measure the distance between signing up and a first genuine exchange — in screens, not features. A short, readable signup, a feed that shows who is actually active, and one clear path to a message all count in a platform's favour. Feature lists do not: a site with forty tools and four paywalls is harder to use, not richer.
Scored down when verification loops repeat, the feed hides who is online, or reaching anyone requires passing a paid "match".
Audience quality
20%Local density matters more than global member counts, which almost no platform publishes honestly. We judge the feed over two weeks of daily use: does it refresh, do profiles say what the person actually wants, and is the audience there for the intention the site claims to serve? Where a figure cannot be confirmed, we say so rather than estimate it.
Scored down when the same handful of profiles return week after week, profiles are thin or copied, or the users are plainly there for a different intention.
Safety & privacy
20%Age verification, photo verification, reporting tools, and — the point most platforms get wrong — privacy defaults. A site that publishes your location or activity by default starts below one that asks first. We also log how quickly a reported fake profile is removed, because moderation you cannot observe is moderation you cannot credit.
Scored down when reports go unanswered, a reported fake profile persists, or the age gate is nominal.
The maths
How a score is actually produced
The overall score is the weighted average of the four criteria, rounded to one decimal place. There is no bonus, no penalty and no editorial override applied afterwards — the arithmetic is the whole method.
We publish a worked example rather than a formula alone, because a formula hides how much of a final score comes from each judgement. Here it is for the platform we rank first.
Worked example
Flirtup · how 9.6 is produced
| Criterion | Score | Weight | Contributes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Value on the free tier | 9.8 | 35% | 3.43 |
| Ease of conversation | 9.7 | 25% | 2.425 |
| Audience quality | 9.2 | 20% | 1.84 |
| Safety & privacy | 9.4 | 20% | 1.88 |
Weighted total 9.575, rounded to one decimal place.
Overall 9.6/10Ranking method
From scores to positions
A ranking is an argument, not a sort order. Category lists qualify a platform before they order it, ties are broken by a written rule, and the same set of scores feeds every page on the site.
From scores to positions
Weighted, then rounded.
Each criterion is scored out of ten. The overall score is the weighted average of the four, rounded to one decimal place, and positions follow the score from highest to lowest.
Category lists qualify before they rank.
A platform must genuinely serve an intention before it appears in that list. A site is absent from a list because it does not belong there, not because it scored badly overall.
Ties go to safety.
When two platforms land within 0.1 of each other, the one with the stronger safety and privacy record is placed first. Where that is also level, the cheaper free experience wins.
One set of scores, every page.
The landing pages are drawn from the same scores as the main index. Nothing is re-scored to suit a page, a season, or a partner.
What never moves a position
These factors are known to us while we rank. None of them is allowed into the score.
- Commission rates or affiliate terms
- The size or fame of a platform
- A request from a partner or an advertiser
- How popular one of our pages happens to be
Popularity tells us what to write about next. It does not tell us who ranks first.
Independence and how the site is funded
We earn a commission when a reader joins some of the platforms we review, Flirtup included. That is the business model, and saying so plainly is part of the method: a recommendation you cannot see the economics behind is worth less than one you can.
The protection is the order of operations. Testing happens first, scoring second, and commercial conversations last — after positions are locked. A partner cannot buy a higher place, a better score, or the deletion of a criticism, and the site we recommend first carries its weaknesses in the review like any other.
Updates, corrections and ageing pages
Pricing moves, paywalls tighten, moderation tools disappear. Every platform is re-checked monthly, each page is dated with the month it was last verified, and a material change moves both the score and the date.
If we have something wrong — a price, a feature, a policy — tell us and it will be corrected or explained. Corrections are preferred with a source, and platforms under review are held to the same standard as our own readers.
Questions
The methodology, challenged
The questions readers and platforms ask most about how this works.
Can a platform pay for a better score or a higher position?
No. We earn a commission when readers join some of the platforms we review, Flirtup included, but commission terms are never part of a score. Scores and positions are finalised before any commercial conversation happens, and no partner can buy a rank, a score, or the removal of a criticism — including the site we recommend first.
How often are the scores and rankings updated?
Every platform is re-checked monthly for pricing, paywall changes and moderation tools, and every page carries the date we last verified it. When something material changes, the score changes with it and the page date moves forward.
Why is Flirtup ranked first?
Flirtup scores 9.6 overall: 9.8 for free-tier value because messaging is included without a card, 9.7 for ease of conversation because a profile takes about a minute and chat opens immediately, and high marks for safety and audience quality. It leads because it wins on the criteria we publish, not because of any arrangement.
What happens when two platforms score almost the same?
When two overall scores land within 0.1 of each other, the platform with the stronger safety and privacy record is placed first. If that is also level, the cheaper free experience wins. The tie-break is written down so the same inputs always produce the same order.
Do you rank sites you have not used?
No. Every platform on a ranking has been signed up to and used on its free tier by a person on our team. Sites we have not tested are left out rather than estimated, and where a fact cannot be confirmed — member counts are the usual culprit — we say so instead of inventing a number.
See the method applied
Flirtup is what these criteria point at.
Free to join, messaging included without a card, and the strongest score on our free-tier and conversation criteria. If the method makes sense to you, this is where it leads.
