How I score apps

What I test

• Real use, not vendor demos: the app signed up for and used with real money.
• Fees verified against each provider's own disclosures and refreshed regularly.
• Capability boundaries: what the app does well and where it falls short.
• What it supports: assets, account types, and limits, checked against the source.
• Trade-offs: every app has them, and the review names them.

The rating

Scores are out of 5 and reflect overall value for the app's intended user, not a feature checkbox count. Higher fees are fine if the app earns them; a free app still loses points if it wastes your time or nickel-and-dimes you. The verdict spells out who should use it and who should skip it.

What I don't do

No app pays for a higher score or a better spot in a ranking. Affiliate links are disclosed and kept out of the rubric. I don't cherry-pick the one number that flatters an app, and I don't tuck the weaknesses below the fold. When a popular app is overrated, the review says so. None of this is personal financial advice.

Where the data comes from

Fees, pricing, and feature details come from each provider's official pages and get re-checked on a schedule, so reviews stay current instead of decaying. Where a number appears, it reflects the most recent check — always confirm current terms on the provider's own site before deciding.

When a score changes

Reviews aren't frozen. An app can climb when it ships a genuinely better update, or slip when a fee hike or a downgrade changes the math. The written verdict gets revisited when an app has changed enough to matter, and each review shows when it was last looked at, so you can judge how current the call is.

Fees and terms change

Fintech apps change fees, tiers, and supported assets without much notice, so a review pins the date it was checked. A verdict on last quarter's terms is labelled as such, not passed off as current. When an app changes enough to alter the experience, the review is re-run rather than patched from a changelog.