Last reviewed: 16 September 2026

Home › Our methodology

Our methodology

Most comparison sites in this space disclose a general independence claim once, in small print, and move on. This page does the opposite: exactly what gets checked, where the evidence comes from, how often it's re-verified, and the specific structural rule that keeps a pass/fail decision separate from money — stated plainly enough that you can hold us to it.

What "reviewed" means on this site

Every page here that makes a factual claim carries a "Last reviewed" date at the top, generated from the same record of when that page's content was actually checked. On the Register specifically, that date marks when the page's aggregate numbers and passing directory were last confirmed accurate. Underneath that page-level date, every individual originator assessment will carry its own two dates — when it was actually checked, and a scheduled re-check — regardless of whether anything about that person changed in between. An originator doesn't stay on the passing directory by default; they stay there because they keep getting re-verified.

Between full re-checks, every listed or previously-failing originator also gets a lighter, automated weekly "delta scan" — a narrower search for genuinely new developments only (a license lapse or revocation, a new disciplinary action, an origination-authority termination, the originator no longer being active), not a full re-run of the standard. If a delta scan finds something material, it triggers a full re-verification before the next public update to that entry, rather than sitting until the next scheduled re-check date.

The evidence a verdict is actually built on

Every point on our published standard is checked against a specific, named, primary source — never an originator's own marketing claim, and never a secondary review site's summary of one. Depending on the point being checked, that means:

• NMLS Consumer Access's own record, for license/registration status, employment history, and publicly adjudicated disciplinary actions.
• The relevant state regulator's own enforcement/disciplinary-action search, for open or settled actions against the originator or their brokerage.
• The CFPB's own Consumer Complaint Database, for company-level complaint context — always disclosed with its company-vs-individual attribution limits stated plainly, per our explainer.
• A direct, quotable marketing claim (a saved ad, a script, a rate sheet) for any deceptive-advertising finding under Regulation N — never a paraphrase.
• A specific, dated transaction record for any TRID timing finding — never a general reputation or an assumption.

See our standard for exactly which source backs which point.

Grading is commercially blind

A pass or fail here is reached by checking an originator against the standard above — nothing else. No payment, sponsorship, or existing or potential commercial relationship has ever been part of that check, and none is intended to be. As of this page's last review, that's not an abstract promise: the Register's own stat row shows zero paid placements, on any entry, in any category.

The site owner has set a direction to eventually monetize the Register's passing directory through a disclosed, flat placement fee — structured deliberately differently from a simpler affiliate-commission model because of RESPA Section 8's ban on any per-closed-loan referral fee (see our standard, point 2, and the monetization note in our editorial policy below). Rules that govern that direction, whether or not it's live yet on any given page:

1. A commercial link is only ever added to an originator who has already passed every point on the standard. It is never a route around the standard, and passing is never conditioned on willingness to participate in one.
2. Whether an originator participates in a commercial arrangement plays no role in the check itself — research and grading happen identically either way, with no visibility into commercial status during vetting.
3. Any live commercial relationship is disclosed clearly on the specific page it appears on, not in a footer or a separate policy page — see our editorial policy for the full disclosure commitment.
4. Any fee is flat and fixed — never a percentage of a loan, never contingent on whether a referred consumer actually closes — precisely because a per-loan cut would put this site's own revenue inside the exact conduct RESPA Section 8 prohibits for the originators it checks.

A disclaimer can't fix a wrong verdict about a real person or business — only a genuinely independent check can. That's why this page exists: not to ask you to trust a claim of independence, but to show exactly what would have to be true for it to be false, so you can check it yourself.

What this site won't do to look more "independent"

We don't publish a numbered "#1 Best Lender" ranking or star ratings — a pass/fail against a fixed, published standard doesn't produce a clean ordering, and forcing one would invent a precision that isn't there. We also don't name a specific failing originator publicly; see the Register for why that's a deliberate policy, not a legal hedge. And we don't grade lenders' rates or financial health — see our standard for that scope boundary.