How comparisons are done

This page is for readers who want to know how we build comparisons and score jurisdictions and guides. It is not legal or tax advice; our data is indicative and updated periodically.

Scoring factors: Bankability (e.g. likelihood of account opening, doc expectations); cost transparency (visibility of formation and ongoing costs); timeline (typical speed to incorporation and banking); ongoing burden (accounting, reporting, renewals); payments viability (processor and gateway fit); use-case fit (e.g. best for SaaS, holding, relocation). We use simple bands (low/med/high, fast/med/slow) rather than precise numbers.

Data sources: Public registries, official fee schedules, practitioner input, and published guides. We do not audit every jurisdiction annually; we prioritise key pages and the comparison table.

Update cadence: Key pages (e.g. jurisdictions index, compare table, pillar guides) are reviewed at least quarterly. Individual jurisdiction pages may be updated in batches.

Limitations: We do not guarantee accuracy or completeness. Jurisdictions and rules change; always confirm with a qualified provider. Our scores are indicative and may differ from other sources; we explain our criteria here so you can judge. We are not a substitute for legal or tax advice.

How often is data updated?

Key pages and the comparison table are reviewed at least quarterly. Individual jurisdiction pages are updated in batches over time.

Why do scores differ from provider X?

We use our own criteria and bands (e.g. low/med/high). Other sources may weight factors differently or use different data. We publish this methodology so you can interpret our scores.

Can I suggest a correction?

Yes. Use Report outdated info to send corrections. We cannot respond to every submission but we do review them.

• Partner standards — how we vet partners.
• How it works — routing and requests.
• Jurisdictions — browse the list.
• Compare jurisdictions — side-by-side table.
• Request introductions — when you are ready.