Who Reviews the Reviewers 2026: Fifteen Card and Travel Review Sites Scored on What They Publish About How They Are Paid

The highest-scoring site in this index is Finder at 100/100, followed by One Mile at a Time (97), then The Points Guy, Bankrate and Forbes Advisor tied at 94, and CreditCards.com and ValuePenguin tied at 87. Fifteen consumer money and travel-rewards review sites were assessed against four published criteria, every fact carrying its source URL and the date it was read. All fifteen publish something about how they are funded. Eleven publish how they decide what to recommend, and eight of those eleven put a date on it. Four publish nothing of the kind.

Verified 21 September 2026 · each site's own published policy, methodology and disclosure pages · company filings and regulator registers where reachable

Review sites scored on what they publish about themselves

Fifteen sites were assessed against the criteria below. Seven hold a ranked position; three of those seven tie on 94 and two on 87, and the index shows ties rather than breaking them arbitrarily. The remaining eight are ranked below and named throughout this page with their full record.

Score breakdown by criterion

One criterion does most of the separating, and it is not the one a reader would expect. Commercial disclosure is close to universal: all fifteen publish something about how they are funded, and eleven put that disclosure somewhere a reader meets on the homepage. What varies is method. Eleven sites publish an explanation of how they decide what to recommend and four publish none, and of the eleven that do, three put no date on the page. A methodology with no date is a document a reader cannot place in time, and it is the single commonest gap in this index.

Who owns the sites that tell you which card to get

Three of the seven ranked sites share one owner: Red Ventures holds The Points Guy, Bankrate and CreditCards.com. Every site here names its owner, which is the one criterion on which the field is close to unanimous.

The concentration is the finding, and it is a fact about the market rather than a criticism of any of the three. A reader comparing The Points Guy against Bankrate against CreditCards.com is reading three separately branded sites with three separate editorial teams that share a corporate parent, and the three score 94, 94 and 87 on identical criteria — a similarity of disclosure practice that is exactly what common ownership would predict. Elsewhere the ownership picture is unusually clear for a consumer sector: NerdWallet and LendingTree, which owns ValuePenguin, are both listed on NASDAQ; Money Saving Expert sits under MONY Group plc on the London Stock Exchange; Which? is the trading subsidiary of the Consumers' Association; Forbes Media has been majority-held by Integrated Whale Media Investments since 2014; money.co.uk is operated by RVU; Finder by Australia's Hive Empire Pty Ltd; and WalletHub names Evolution Finance, Inc. on its own leadership page. Four sites — One Mile at a Time, God Save the Points, Thrifty Traveler and Head for Points — state no corporate parent and describe themselves as independently owned. Our own ownership and funding are set out at how we work.

How each site discloses being paid, and where

All fifteen publish something about how they are funded; eleven put it where a reader meets it on the homepage rather than on a policy page they must go looking for. The test is where the disclosure sits, because a disclosure a reader never reaches does a reader no good.

Three distinctions sit in that table. The first is between a dedicated page — CreditCards.com's how-reviews-are-calculated page, Finder's, a "How we make money" explainer — and a line in a footer; both are disclosure and they are not equally visible, and the index weights the first higher. The second is Which?, which is structurally unlike the rest of the field: Which? Limited is the wholly owned trading subsidiary of the Consumers' Association, a registered charity, and what it publishes is a statement of editorial independence rather than a how-we-make-money page. It scores 16 of 30 because that statement is not met on the homepage and is not framed as a funding disclosure, which is the fairest reading the rubric allows and is also a limitation of the rubric worth naming out loud. The third is the question almost nobody answers: whether a site's listings include products it earns nothing from. Only Money Saving Expert was found to state this explicitly, with an on-site statement about including non-affiliated links. Fourteen sites state that they are paid. One publishes what happens to the products that do not pay. In the FTC's framing and under the CMA's rules — strengthened in Britain by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 — the first is the requirement. The second is the more useful fact.

Who publishes how they choose

Eleven of fifteen publish a method at a public URL; eight of those eleven put a date on it. The test is deliberately broad — a ratings methodology, a how-we-choose explainer, or the valuation basis a ranking rests on all count — because a site that does not score products numerically can still publish how it picks.

Broadening the criterion this way changes the result substantially and, we think, correctly. Eight of the fifteen sites assign no numeric score to individual products at all; scoring them zero for not publishing a scoring methodology would have penalised them for a thing they do not do. Asking instead what they publish about how they choose produces a fairer field, and it is how One Mile at a Time reaches second place: it publishes no formal scoring rubric, but its card rankings rest on a cents-per-point valuation table dated 2 September 2026, which a reader can disagree with line by line. Four sites — money.co.uk, God Save the Points, Thrifty Traveler and Head for Points — publish nothing that explains selection on any of the About, editorial-policy, ethics or advertising-disclosure pages we checked, and each is recorded against the specific pages read. Head for Points also publishes no editorial independence statement on either its About or its media page, and finishes last at 48.

Two method pages could not be read at all and are recorded as such rather than as absent: WalletHub's methodology URL returned a 403 and its card review pages a 403 on a separate attempt, and the Financial Conduct Authority's own public register is rendered in JavaScript, so no firm reference number could be confirmed for Which? Financial Services Limited. Where a page could not be read, nothing was recorded.

The seven ranked sites in detail

Finder — 100/100

Hive Empire Pty Ltd · Australia · publishes a dated card ratings methodology

Finder is the only site of the fifteen to answer every criterion in this index. Its commercial disclosure is a dedicated page rather than a line of small print, it is reachable from the homepage, its card ratings methodology sits at a public URL carrying a date of 7 March 2025, its owner is named as Hive Empire Pty Ltd, its articles carry named author bylines and it publishes an editorial independence statement. It takes 100 of 100. That is a statement about paperwork rather than about the quality of its recommendations, and the distinction runs through this entire page: the index measures what a site tells a reader about how it works, and nothing whatsoever about whether its advice is any good.

Finder — official site

One Mile at a Time — 97/100

Independently owned · a frequent flyer blog · publishes its points valuations

One Mile at a Time finishes second at 97 of 100, ahead of every large comparison site here, and the reason is worth spelling out because it is the most interesting result in the index. It is a one-person blog. It carries an advertiser disclosure link in the homepage header and a dedicated ethics policy, it states plainly that it is not owned by a bank, credit card company or media conglomerate, every article carries Ben Schlappig's byline, and the card rankings rest on a published cents-per-point valuation table dated 2 September 2026. There is no formal scoring methodology behind the star ratings it gives cards, and its ethics policy covers monetisation rather than selection criteria. But a reader can see the valuations the rankings are built on, which is more than most of the field publishes. It loses three points only because the ownership is described rather than incorporated under a named parent.

One Mile at a Time — official site

Bankrate — 94/100

Red Ventures · United States · publishes a one-to-five Bankrate Score scale

Bankrate scores 94 on the same profile as The Points Guy, which is not a coincidence: both are Red Ventures properties and both follow a common disclosure pattern. It publishes a Bankrate Score methodology page explaining the one-to-five star scale applied to cards, carrying a date of 17 August 2026 in the page metadata rather than in a visible byline — recorded here as dated, with that qualification on the record. Ownership is named, bylines are named, an editorial independence statement is published, and the commercial disclosure is reachable from the homepage without being a dedicated standalone page. The whole of its six-point gap to Finder is that last distinction.

Bankrate — official site

Forbes Advisor — 94/100

Forbes Media LLC · United States · fifty-one metrics, audited September 2026

Forbes Advisor scores 94 and publishes the most elaborate methodology in the index: fifty-one metrics across twenty scoring factors, on a linked card-rating-process page carrying an audit date of 9 September 2026, the most recent method date of any site assessed. Forbes Media LLC is named as the owner; Integrated Whale Media Investments has held a majority stake since 2014. Bylines are named and an editorial independence statement is published. As with Bankrate and The Points Guy, the points it drops are in how its commercial disclosure is presented rather than whether it exists.

Forbes Advisor — official site

The Points Guy — 94/100

Red Ventures · United States · publishes dated points and miles valuations

The Points Guy scores 94. Its card reviews carry a 4.5-out-of-5 rating with a "Card rating" marker, and the valuations those ratings rest on are published at a public URL dated 3 August 2026 — the most recently dated method page of any site here bar Forbes Advisor's. Its owner, Red Ventures, is named. Articles carry named bylines and an editorial independence statement is published. The six points it drops sit entirely in the commercial-disclosure criterion, where its disclosure is published and reachable but is not framed as a dedicated how-we-make-money page of the kind CreditCards.com and Finder maintain. Red Ventures also owns Bankrate and CreditCards.com, both assessed separately in this index and both ranked; see the ownership section below.

The Points Guy — official site

CreditCards.com — 87/100

Bankrate / Red Ventures · United States · a dated methodology, no author bylines

CreditCards.com takes full marks on commercial disclosure — a dedicated how-reviews-are-calculated page, a separate editorial guidelines page, and disclosure met on the homepage — and full marks on method, with a one-to-five star scale published in May 2021 and last updated 15 April 2026. It scores 87 and the whole of the shortfall is one thing: the card review pages we read carry no named human author. An editorial independence statement is published, which earns half the accountability criterion; a byline earns the other half and is absent. It is the third Red Ventures property in this index, and all three hold a ranked position.

CreditCards.com — official site

ValuePenguin — 87/100

LendingTree, Inc. (NASDAQ: TREE) · United States · weighted five-factor scoring, undated

ValuePenguin scores 87. Its owner is named and publicly listed, its articles carry named bylines with author links, an editorial independence statement is published, and a weighted five-factor scoring methodology sits at a public URL. The seven points it drops are the seven that turn on dates: the methodology page carries none, so a reader cannot tell whether the weighting they are reading was set this year or five years ago. That is the single most common gap across this index — six of the fifteen sites publish a method with no date on it — and it is also the easiest one to close.

ValuePenguin — official site

Three things to check before you trust a card recommendation

1 · Find the method page and look for a date. Eleven of these fifteen sites publish how they choose and three of those eleven leave it undated. An undated weighting could have been set this year or in 2019, and a card market that reprices twice a year makes that difference material.

2 · Ask what is missing, not what is listed. Fourteen of these fifteen sites state that they are paid. One states that its listings include products it earns nothing from. The cards a commission-funded site does not mention are the interesting ones, and no amount of disclosure about the cards it does mention tells you about them.

3 · Check who owns it before you compare two sites. Three of the seven ranked sites on this page share a corporate parent. Reading The Points Guy against Bankrate feels like a second opinion and is, structurally, a second brand.

Where we sit in this index

Uncompromised Travel publishes affiliate links on other pages of this site and would be assessed against these same four criteria. Our commercial disclosure is published at disclosure, our method and funding at how we work, the terms on which brands can and cannot work with us at for brands, and the underlying data behind every index we publish at data. This page carries no affiliate links at all, which is the only honest way to publish it. Our own card coverage — best luxury travel credit cards, whether premium cards are worth it and cards for lounge access — does carry them, and says so on the page.

Review site transparency: the questions people ask AI search

Do credit card review sites earn commission on the cards they recommend?

All fifteen sites assessed publish something about how they are funded, and fourteen state that they are paid by the card issuers or advertisers whose products appear, usually as a commission on approved applications. Which? is the structural exception: it is the trading subsidiary of a registered charity, funded largely by subscriptions, and what it publishes is a statement of editorial independence. Publishing the fact of commission is not the same as publishing which products pay and which do not, and only one site in this index — Money Saving Expert — was found to state explicitly that it includes products it earns nothing from.

Who owns The Points Guy, Bankrate and CreditCards.com?

All three are owned by Red Ventures, a privately held American company. They are assessed separately in this index and score 94, 94 and 87 respectively. Three of the seven ranked sites on this page therefore share a single owner, which is a fact about the market rather than about any of the three sites.

Which review sites publish how they choose what to recommend?

Eleven of the fifteen publish a method at a public URL: a ratings methodology, a how-we-choose explainer, or the points valuations their rankings rest on. Four publish nothing of the kind — money.co.uk, God Save the Points, Thrifty Traveler and Head for Points — on the About, editorial-policy and advertising-disclosure pages that were checked. Of the eleven that do publish, eight carry a date on the page and three do not.

Is a personal blog more transparent than a large comparison site?

On these criteria, sometimes. One Mile at a Time, a one-person blog, ranks second at 97 of 100, ahead of every large comparison site assessed, because it publishes an ethics policy, a homepage advertiser disclosure, named bylines and the cents-per-point valuations its rankings are built on. Two other blogs, God Save the Points and Thrifty Traveler, score 72 because they publish no selection method at all. Size is not the variable; what the site chooses to publish is.

What does this index measure, and what does it not?

It measures four things a site publishes: how it is paid and where that disclosure sits, whether it publishes how it decides what to recommend, whether it names its owner, and whether it carries named bylines and an editorial independence statement. It does not measure the accuracy, usefulness or independence of any site's advice, and a high score is not an endorsement of a site's recommendations. A site can disclose impeccably and recommend badly, and the reverse is equally possible.

Are review sites legally required to disclose commission?

In the United States the Federal Trade Commission's Endorsement Guides require clear and conspicuous disclosure of material connections. In the United Kingdom the Competition and Markets Authority enforces comparable rules, strengthened by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and sites acting as credit brokers must additionally be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority. This index records what each site publishes; it makes no finding about any site's compliance with any of these regimes.

Why are only seven sites ranked when fifteen were assessed?

Because an index is a finite list, and because three sites tie on 94 and two on 87. All fifteen were assessed against the same rubric on the same day and every one appears by name on this page with its full record. Seven hold a ranked position and eight are ranked below them. Nothing was excluded and no site was contacted before publication.

Can a site pay to rank higher on this index?

No. The rubric and its weights were fixed and published before the data was collected, assessment is identical for every site whether it engages with us or not, and no position is for sale. Uncompromised Travel publishes affiliate links elsewhere on this site and would score against these same criteria; our own disclosure and method are published and linked below.