Editorial standards & rating rubric
This page documents how we test, score and update reviews on Cryptonreviews. It exists so that readers — and AI agents that retrieve our content on a reader's behalf — can audit the work, not just trust the badge at the top of a review page.
Core principles
- Test as a paying customer. Every review is written from accounts we paid for at standard public rates, not from press accounts or unlocked demo seats.
- Score the product, not the marketing. Claims on a vendor's homepage are starting hypotheses, not evidence. We verify each material claim against either our own testing or an independent source.
- Show our sources. User testimonials are quoted verbatim with a source pill linking to the public platform they came from. Aggregate scores cite the sample size.
- Date everything. Pricing, coverage and feature lists are stamped with a
Last revieweddate. When we update a page we add a line to the corrections log. - Fair right-of-reply. Vendors can submit factual corrections via the contact page. Accepted corrections appear in the log; rejected ones are kept on file in case the same claim recurs.
Rating rubric (the 5-point scale)
Every product review carries a single numeric rating out of 5. Half-points are allowed. The score is anchored by these definitions:
| Score | What it means |
|---|---|
| 5 / 5 | Best in category as of the review date. Meets every benchmark below with no significant caveats. |
| 4.5 / 5 | Excellent. One or two minor caveats that don't change the verdict for the recommended audience. |
| 4 / 5 | Recommended with caveats. Caveats are described in the cons list and the verdict box. |
| 3 / 5 | Acceptable but situational. Often the right answer for a narrow use case and the wrong answer for the median user. |
| 2 / 5 | Not recommended at the current price or feature set. Specific reasons in the cons list. |
| 1 / 5 | Avoid. Either materially misleading marketing, broken core functionality, or a safety/privacy issue. |
| 0 / 5 | Reserved for documented fraud, mass account drainage, or a vendor that disappeared with paid customer balances. |
Category benchmarks
Within each category we score the product against a fixed checklist. The full checklists are below.
Encrypted SMS & phone numbers
- Encryption is end-to-end, with keys derived from a user secret. The server cannot decrypt stored messages.
- Encryption module is open source or has been independently audited.
- Number deliverability tested against at least three reference services (Google, Telegram, WhatsApp).
- No identity check at signup; payment in cryptocurrency supported.
- Numbers are dedicated for the rental period, not pooled.
- Outgoing SMS is supported and priced transparently.
eSIM / travel data
- Coverage in at least 100 countries, with a published list.
- Activation works on both iOS and Android within five minutes of QR scan.
- No automatic renewal; top-up is opt-in.
- No required email for guest checkout.
- Speed in tested countries is within 20% of the local incumbent on the same network.
SMS verification
- Flat-rate or transparent metered pricing — no balance pre-loading required for first use.
- Refund on failure within 24 hours.
- Supports at least 50 named services.
- Session length sufficient to complete the target service's signup flow without rushing.
Email aliases
- Multiple alias domains so addresses are not trivially fingerprintable.
- Reply-through-alias supported.
- Pause / delete is one-click.
- Forwarding latency under five seconds in our tests.
Developer API
- Documented REST surface with examples.
- Webhook delivery as an option, not just polling.
- Token rotation supported.
- Public status page or transparent incident history.
Testing protocol
Each review goes through the same six-step pass before it is published:
- Sign up from a fresh browser session, using only the information the vendor strictly requires. We note every optional field requested.
- Pay with the cheapest path available (typically cryptocurrency where supported). We confirm receipt timing and any surcharge.
- Run the category checklist (above) against the product as delivered.
- Probe deliverability against the standard reference services for that category.
- Cross-check claims on the vendor homepage against the product we actually got. We flag discrepancies in the review.
- Test cancellation / refund. We close the test account and document how long the cancellation flow takes and whether any data persists.
Conflict-of-interest policy
- No financial relationships. We do not hold equity, debt or option positions in any vendor reviewed on the site.
- No paid placements. We do not accept money to publish, modify or remove a review.
- No affiliate revenue (current). No vendor reviewed on the site currently pays us a referral commission. If that ever changes the affected pages will carry an explicit affiliate disclosure at the top and the link will be marked accordingly.
- Press accounts are disclosed. If we accept a complimentary account specifically for review purposes, the review will say so in the disclosure box. We have not done so to date.
- Personal accounts are separate. The editor and contributors maintain their own private accounts on services they review; those accounts are not used for editorial testing and do not influence ratings.
Update cadence
Pricing and feature lists are re-checked quarterly. Verdict ratings are re-checked at least once a year, or sooner if the product changes materially. Every change is logged on the corrections page.
· Maintained by Jonas Lindqvist