Methodology
Research and ranking methodology
See how Outsourcing.ai defines buyer fit, verifies material claims, separates commercial relationships, and scores providers for a stated use case.
Start with a buyer and decision
Each commercial page defines who it is for, which decision it addresses, and what evidence could change the conclusion. A recommendation for a short productized task should not be presented as a recommendation for a long-running product team.
Provider score model
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Fit for the stated buyer and project | 20% |
| Vetting quality and supporting evidence | 20% |
| Pricing and contract transparency | 15% |
| Buyer protections and payment safeguards | 15% |
| Speed to start or staff | 10% |
| International hiring and compliance capability | 10% |
| Support and dispute handling | 10% |
Scores are calculated from visible evidence using the same scale for every candidate. Missing evidence is not silently treated as a favorable answer.
Claims ledger
Material claims record the claim text, publisher, source URL, publication and access dates when available, whether the statement is direct or inferred, reviewer, verification date, provider-supplied status, and commercial relationship status.
We do not publish fabricated ratings, copied directory databases, undisclosed sponsored conclusions, or commission-weighted rankings. Providers may correct facts and supply evidence; they cannot buy a score.
Evidence ledger
Sources used on this page
- Endorsement Guides — U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Supports: FTC endorsement guidance on honest representations and material connections, supporting the separation of commercial relationships from editorial scoring. Direct source; independently sourced; commercial relationship: none. Verified 8/14/2026 by Outsourcing.ai Editorial Team. Accessed 8/14/2026.
Next scheduled review: November 14, 2026. Corrections: hello@outsourcing.ai.