- Home
- How We Score
What BoostingReviews Pays For, and What It Logs
Every score on this site starts the same way: someone here pays for a boost and then watches what happens to the account. That is 296 paid orders sitting behind the ratings you read, placed by us, at whatever price a stranger would have been charged that day. We re-audit the whole table on a monthly cycle, and the last pass closed on June 29, 2026. Nobody buys a rating here, and nobody buys a second look after a bad one.
The Scoring Formula
Each company carries a Trust Score between 0 and 100, assembled from five weighted inputs that stay identical across every listing on this site. A service selling Valorant rank pushes gets measured on the same five columns as one selling Overwatch coaching hours, with the same arithmetic underneath. Account safety takes the biggest share at 35 percent for a blunt reason: a cheap boost that costs you the account was never cheap. Slow delivery annoys you and a hidden fee irritates you, but sloppy credential handling can end a decade of playtime in an afternoon.
| What we score | Weight | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|
| Account safety | 35% | Whether sessions stay hidden from a friends list, whether play is routed through an endpoint in the buyer's own country, who handles the login and where it sits between shifts, whether ToS exposure is spelled out in plain language on the product page, and what the service tells you to do with your credentials after delivery. |
| Order completion and speed | 25% | Did the paid job finish at all, did work begin when checkout said it would, and did the result match what we bought. We log every pause, every hand-off to a second player, and any gap between the advertised turnaround and the clock we kept ourselves. |
| Transparent pricing | 15% | The figure on the payment screen has to match the figure on the product page. We re-quote a fixed basket of orders at set intervals, watch for charges that surface only at the final step, and confirm that refund conditions exist in writing where a buyer can find them ahead of handing over money. |
| Verified reviews | 15% | Feedback we can trace to an actual purchase carries weight; anonymous praise arriving in clumps carries almost none. We read how a company answers its angriest customer, and we treat the shape of the rating distribution as more telling than the headline average above it. |
| Support quality | 10% | Timed replies to real tickets raised while money was live. On top of that, each company fields one uncomfortable ask from us: switch the order midway, press for a refund, or name whoever has the account open at that minute. Competence on those threads counts for more than a fast greeting. |
From Poor to Excellent
Anything at 90 or above earns Excellent, the 75 to 89 band reads as Good, 60 to 74 lands at Fair, and a total under 60 gets labelled Poor along with the reason it fell there.
What We Test and Verify
- Who Actually Played. A service keeps its speed points only if the account credited with the work is the account that did it. We compare rank history, match timestamps and the hero or agent pool across those games against whatever the seller told us at assignment. When a second player picked the order up partway through and nobody mentioned it, that lands in the written review.
- Scheduled Price Sweeps. One fixed basket of orders gets re-quoted on a calendar, so a temporary discount cannot flatter a company forever. Same ranks, same regions, same add-ons, logged each round. If a figure on this site drifts from what you meet at checkout, a sweep is usually overdue; the June 29, 2026 pass is the one feeding the current table.
- Review Burst Audit. Ratings pages get taken apart before they touch a score. We look for clusters of glowing feedback landing within a few hours of each other, repeated phrasing across accounts that never posted again, and reviewers whose entire history is one boosting company. A pattern like that costs a service more points than a handful of furious one-star posts ever does.
Who We Are
Kevin Marsh runs Boosting Reviews as Editor-in-Chief. He teaches Overwatch and Marvel Rivals VOD review, which is how this project began: his students kept buying boosts, and he wanted to know what they were actually being sold. He pays for the 296 orders behind these ratings out of his own budget and runs the monthly re-audit himself, most recently on June 29, 2026.
Keeping It Honest
Position in our table cannot be purchased. Every order in the count came out of the editorial budget, and four rules hold that line:
- We buy the way any customer buys - our own money, ordinary accounts, no press contact, no warning that a reviewer is on the other end of the ticket.
- Affiliate links live on this site and they fund the testing, but they move neither the ranking order nor a single point of anyone's Trust Score.
- Every company goes through an identical run of checks under identical weights, regardless of how pleasant they were to deal with.
- A service reads its own result at the same moment you do. No preview, no right of reply before publication, no quiet edit arranged over email.
Corrections and Feedback
We get things wrong sometimes, and a page that stays wrong is worse than one corrected in public. If something here contradicts what you were charged or what support told you, flag it to team@boostingreviews.com. Paste the page address, quote whichever line looks off, and we have plenty to work from. We match the claim against our own order logs and receipts before touching the line, then either fix it or explain what we recorded.