- Home
- How We Score
One BoostersReviews Audit, Order by Order
Every rating on Boosters Reviews begins with an order somebody here paid for. Two hundred and forty of them so far, logged from checkout through to the moment the account came back to us, across every service in our table. The whole set is re-audited monthly, and the last full pass wrapped on June 10, 2026. No service pays for a rating, and none of them is offered the chance to.
Inside the Scoring Model
A Trust Score is a 0-100 number assembled from five weighted inputs, and the same five run against every service we publish. Weights are fixed site-wide, so nothing gets tuned after we see where a service lands. Our heaviest single weight, 35 percent, sits on account safety and handling. Money buys back the week a slow order eats; nothing buys back an account that gets flagged, and that asymmetry decides the ranking of the inputs. Speed of completion, what the price honestly is, verified sentiment and support fill the remaining 65 percent in that order of weight.
| Criterion | Weight | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Account safety and handling | 35% | Whether the session stays hidden while somebody else plays your account, whether the connection used lines up with the country you normally log in from, where your credentials sit while the order runs, and whether the service says plainly that boosting sits against publisher policy. We also grade the end of the job: how access is handed back, whether two-factor stays under your control, and what the service tells you to do next. |
| Order completion and speed | 25% | Did the order actually finish, did work begin when checkout said it would, and did the account come back matching what we bought. Pauses, quiet reassignments to a second booster and extensions nobody announced all land in this input, because an order that arrives late is a different product from the one that was sold. |
| What the price really is | 15% | We sweep quotes across ranks and regions on a single day, then push each checkout to the last screen before payment to see whether the headline figure survives. Currency handling, service charges and options that quietly turn compulsory get counted against the score. Refund conditions have to exist in writing on the site and be findable without opening a ticket. |
| Verified user sentiment | 15% | Reviews we can tie to a traceable purchase carry weight; anonymous bursts do not. We read the one- and two-star end of the pile first, then judge how the service answered it, since one specific public reply tells us more than another hundred four-word positives. Shape of the distribution matters more here than how tall the stack is. |
| Support responsiveness | 10% | Real tickets from our order accounts, timed from send to first human reply, plus one request built to be uncomfortable - a partial return, a booster swap halfway through, something no macro answers. We grade whether the reply solved the thing, not merely how fast it arrived. |
From Poor to Excellent
We print a band next to every number so the scale reads at a glance: 90 and above is Excellent, 75 through 89 is Good, 60 through 74 lands at Fair, and anything below 60 is filed as Poor.
What We Measure Ourselves
- Testing The Refund Path. A written policy is only a claim until somebody tries it. On paid orders we cancel, dispute or ask for a partial return, then time how long the money takes to reach the card and note everything the service demands on the way. Several of the 240 orders in our log exist for no other purpose, and what we learn there feeds the pricing input rather than a footnote.
- Auditing The Review Trail. We pull a service's full public review history instead of quoting its headline average. Clusters landing on one day in near-identical phrasing get flagged, so do duplicated sentences appearing under different profiles and accounts carrying a single lifetime review. Whatever survives that pass is what moves the 15 percent sentiment weight, and we say so on the page when a distribution looks manufactured.
- Orders We Pay For. Nothing here runs on a press account or a comped booking. All 240 orders went through an ordinary checkout on our own cards, and we keep the timestamps: purchase, first contact, first match played, completion, and the condition the account was in when it came back. Screenshots and chat transcripts sit behind every claim we publish about a service.
Behind the Testing
Sam Harlow, Senior Reviewer at Boosters Reviews. Played CS2 at a semi-pro level, then spent four years handling payment disputes at a games marketplace - which is why refund wording gets read here before anything else. Sam funds and places the 240 test orders behind these scores and runs the monthly re-audit, most recently on June 10, 2026.
How We Stay Independent
Nobody buys a position on this site, and no service funds the testing that produces its score. Each order is billed to the editorial budget. What keeps it that way:
- One process and one set of weights, applied to a market leader and to a two-person operation identically. Nothing gets graded on a shorter checklist because it is small, new or widely advertised.
- A service finds out its number when readers do. We send no drafts for comment and take no calls about a weighting before the page goes live.
- Test purchases go through ordinary accounts with no editorial identity attached and come out of our own budget, so the experience we write up is the experience any reader would be sold.
Corrections Policy
We would rather fix a page than defend it. If a figure here has gone stale or a detail reads wrong, write to tips@boostersreviews.net; give us the address of the page and point at the line that looks off. Every request gets checked against our order logs and chat transcripts before anything on the page moves.