Format fit
Schedule, location, residency and work-continuity requirements.
Our comparison method
Useful comparison starts by showing what the evidence can—and cannot—say.
We separate verified facts, program claims and editorial interpretation. We do not turn incomplete inputs into a false precision score.
Learning experience
Teaching mix, interaction, feedback, group work and academic support.
Career relevance
Recruiting access, career services and market alignment—without implying guaranteed outcomes.
Cohort context
Experience, geography and sector mix when a current primary source supports it.
Cost context
Published charges and material exclusions only when current and directly sourced.
Evidence quality
Source type, publication date, last checked date and unresolved gaps.
Publication rules
How evidence should appear.
Primary sources first
Program websites, official documents and regulator or accreditation records take priority. Third-party reporting can add context, but should be identified as such.
Dates and gaps stay visible
A factual field should show when it was checked. If a current fact cannot be verified, the honest value is “not verified”—not an estimate.
No pay-to-rank treatment
Commercial relationships must not determine editorial inclusion, comparison order or conclusions. Any future sponsored placement must be labelled clearly and kept separate.
Corrections are part of the method
Material corrections should be logged with the date and nature of the change. Readers should be able to challenge a claim and point to a source.
Put fit first