Current testing status
What we have done so far, as of the site's last data update (2026-08-19). 1 of 9 scored registrars (Porkbun) has dated evidence notes published on its review page, and those notes are verification against the registrar's own published documentation and pricing pages — not observations from inside a paying account. The other 8 scored reviews are evaluated from each registrar's published documentation and the pricing rows we track for it, with no timed support test or transfer run behind them.
Pricing is verified from primary sources for 6 of 20 tracked registrars (see data sources); the remaining prices and every category score are illustrative placeholders until they are re-derived from verified evidence. The sections below describe the process a full test is meant to follow. Where a review has no published notes, its Support and Transfer sections say what they are based on instead of implying a test we have not run.
Selection criteria
- ICANN-accredited or recognized ccTLD registrar.
- Publicly available pricing on the registrar's website.
- Sufficient public information to evaluate against scoring criteria.
- Available to consumers in at least one of our reviewed countries.
Scoring weights
Every registrar receives a 0–10 score in each category. The overall score is a weighted average using these weights:
| Category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Renewal pricing | 20.0% |
| Pricing transparency | 15.0% |
| WHOIS privacy | 10.0% |
| DNS tools | 10.0% |
| Security / 2FA | 10.0% |
| Support quality | 10.0% |
| Transfer experience | 10.0% |
| TLD / ccTLD coverage | 7.5% |
| Developer tools / API | 5.0% |
| Beginner UX | 2.5% |
How pricing is verified
The strongest-evidenced layer on this site is the pricing, and it is not uniformly evidenced — so rather than a single “verified” badge, every registrar carries a status describing how its figures were obtained, and that status is published alongside the data.
| Status | What it means | Registrars |
|---|---|---|
| verified_primary | Read from the registrar's own pricing page or public API on a recorded date, with the source URL stored per row. | 6 |
| model_confirmed | Derived from a registrar's published at-cost pricing model rather than a price table. Well-founded, but we state the basis. | 1 |
| blocked_geo_currency | The registrar serves a different currency or storefront from our collection vantage point, so figures would not be comparable. | 1 |
| blocked_js_render | Prices are rendered in a way our collector cannot read reliably; we publish nothing rather than guess. | 1 |
| not_yet_attempted | We have not tried to collect this registrar's pricing yet. No figures are published for it. | 11 |
Prices carrying a verified_primary status are citable as fact: each row records the registrar page it was read from and the date. Everything else is labelled wherever it renders, and a “cheapest” claim is only ever computed across verified rows — an unverified figure is not a cheaper answer, it is not an answer. The machine-readable version is at /data/verification-status.json.
What each score rests on
Category scores are not all the same kind of claim, and presenting eleven numbers in one table implies they are. Each one on a review page is labelled with its basis, and across the 9 scored registrars the split is:
- Measured — 24 of 99. Derived from pricing we collected and verified ourselves.
- From published documentation — 48 of 99. Traced to a fact recorded from the registrar's own published material.
- Editorial judgement — 27 of 99. A judgement. We have not published a measurement behind this number.
The last group is the honest part. Transfer experience and beginner UX have no published measurement behind them, and saying so is worth more than writing a justification that sounds like one. Where we publish results, those scores move into the first group.
A worked example
The overall score is the weighted average of the categories, nothing more. For Porkbun:
| Category | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renewal pricing | 9.5 | 20.0% | 1.900 |
| Pricing transparency | 9.5 | 15.0% | 1.425 |
| WHOIS privacy | 9.5 | 10.0% | 0.950 |
| DNS tools | 8.5 | 10.0% | 0.850 |
| Security / 2FA | 8.5 | 10.0% | 0.850 |
| Support | 8.0 | 10.0% | 0.800 |
| Transfer experience | 9.0 | 10.0% | 0.900 |
| TLD / ccTLD coverage | 8.5 | 7.5% | 0.637 |
| Developer tools / API | 8.5 | 5.0% | 0.425 |
| Beginner UX | 8.5 | 2.5% | 0.213 |
| Weighted total | 8.95 | ||
| Published overall | 9.0 |
If those two figures diverge, the published score has been rounded — the arithmetic above is the whole of it. There is no adjustment step, no editorial thumb on the scale, and no input that is not in the table.
Pricing
Renewal pricing is weighted higher than first-year pricing. Many registrars advertise low first-year prices that mask higher renewal costs. We compare first-year and renewal prices separately, and surface the three-year cost (one first-year price + two renewals) for long-term comparison.
WHOIS privacy
We check whether WHOIS privacy is free, what contact fields are redacted by default, and whether opting in requires extra steps.
DNS tools
DNS scores reflect supported record types (including ALIAS / ANAME, CAA, DNSSEC, and DNS-over-HTTPS), propagation behavior, and UI clarity. Anycast network quality is also considered when published.
Security and 2FA
We evaluate 2FA support (TOTP, security keys, SMS), account recovery flows, registry lock availability, and audit log access.
Support
Target process: timed live-chat or ticket questions on common scenarios — transfer-out, DNS configuration, WHOIS updates — with the question, the timestamp, and the response published in the registrar's notes.
Today: no timed support results are published for any registrar. Support scores currently reflect the channels, hours, and escalation paths each registrar documents publicly, which is what the review pages state. See current testing status.
Transfer experience
Target process: initiate an inbound and an outbound transfer on at least one TLD per registrar, recording lock and auth-code friction, fees, and confirmation timing with dates.
Today: no transfer runs are published. Transfer scores currently reflect published transfer pricing, lock and auth-code policy, and the registrar's own documented transfer steps — the same sources our transfer guides cite.
TLD and ccTLD coverage
Coverage is verified against the registrar's published TLD list and cross-checked against the IANA root zone for ccTLDs.
Country recommendations
For each country we evaluate ccTLD pricing, local presence requirements, local payment methods, and local-language support.
Developer tools and API
API scores reflect documentation completeness, scope coverage (registration, transfers, DNS, contacts), rate limits, and stability.
Update frequency
- Pricing: Monthly
- Scoring: Quarterly or after a notable registrar change
- Country recommendations: Quarterly
- Registrar reviews: At least once per year and after major product changes
Affiliate policy
Some links on this site may earn a commission. Affiliate relationships do not determine which registrars are included, how they are scored, or which are recommended. Scores are based solely on the published criteria above.
Corrections policy
If a price, score, or fact is incorrect, contact us via the corrections form. Verified corrections are applied within 7 business days and noted in the changelog of the affected page.