How We Score Providers
Every provider is scored 0–100 across five equally-weighted dimensions. Scores are calculated manually based on public information, community reports, and direct testing. No score is paid for or influenced by providers. We earn affiliate commissions — disclosed clearly, never at the cost of accuracy.
Scoring Dimensions
Transparency
20 ptsDoes the provider have a public about page? Are model names and prices clearly disclosed? Is the pricing model (per-token vs. subscription) unambiguous? Providers that hide credit-to-token conversion rates lose points here.
Example scores
Support Quality
20 ptsCan you reach a human when something breaks? Email and ticket-based support score highest. Telegram-only is weak but better than nothing. WeChat-only is a red flag for non-Chinese users.
Example scores
Payment Safety
20 ptsStripe payments protect users with chargeback rights. Crypto-only or WeChat-only payments offer no recourse if the provider goes offline. We check for which payment processors are accepted.
Example scores
Community
20 ptsIs there a visible developer community around this service? GitHub repos, Discord servers, real IDE integrations (Claude Code, Cursor, Cline), and social presence all signal that real developers have tried and vouched for the product.
Example scores
Longevity
20 ptsHow long has the provider been operating? New domains (especially cheap TLDs like .me, .top, .cloud) score lower. Providers with Wayback Machine history, established customer bases, or stated founding dates score higher.
Example scores
Trust Tiers
75–100 pts
Independent verification, strong community, Stripe payments, transparent pricing.
50–74 pts
Usable but verify pricing and check for recent community reports before spending.
25–49 pts
Significant trust gaps. New domain, limited support, or opaque pricing.
0–24 pts
Multiple serious red flags. Do not use for sensitive workloads.
Warning Flags
In addition to trust scores, we apply independent warning flags for specific risk factors. These appear on provider cards and in the comparison table.
China-Adjacent Operator
Providers operated from China or using Chinese payment methods (Alipay, WeChat Pay) create data residency concerns. Your API calls — including prompts, code, and documents — may pass through infrastructure subject to Chinese law. This is a risk signal, not an automatic disqualification.
More Expensive Than Official
Some gateways claim to be discount services but price certain models above official Anthropic/OpenAI/Google rates. This can happen due to currency conversion, profit margin on specific models, or simple pricing errors. We flag this prominently.
Custom Model Naming
Some China-adjacent providers use non-standard model names (e.g., gpt-5.2, gpt-5.4) that do not correspond to real OpenAI products. This makes it impossible to verify what model is actually being called.
Credit Systems Without Token Conversion
Subscription services that sell 'credits' without disclosing how many credits equal 1M tokens make price comparison impossible. We flag these providers and exclude them from per-token price comparisons.
Limitations
- We cannot verify actual API latency or uptime without running sustained load tests — we use self-reported figures where available.
- Pricing may change at any time. We update weekly but cannot guarantee real-time accuracy.
- China-adjacent operators may provide excellent service — the flag is a data residency disclosure, not a quality judgment.
- Trust scores reflect public signals only. A high score does not guarantee a provider won't disappear tomorrow.
- We have not independently verified SOC2 or other compliance claims. "Claims SOC2" ≠ "is SOC2 certified."