Terms & Conditions

The Carrier Alliance Score is our editorial assessment out of 100. Compare scores within the same service category: the factors that matter for factoring differ from those that matter for an insurance policy.

• Factoring: carrier reputation and experience, getting paid, account tools, fees and available funds, and contract flexibility. Relevant, recent feedback carries more weight when supported by distinct accounts across independent sources.
• Fuel cards: route coverage and usable value 25%, fees and account terms 25%, funding and payment options 20%, driver and fleet tools 30%.
• Insurance: trucking coverage and placement 30%, certificates and policy changes 25%, claims handling or coordination 25%, policy and renewal arrangements 20%. We distinguish insurers, brokers and referral services and assess the work each performs.
• Truck and equipment financing: equipment and borrower fit, payment and agreement options, account and equipment support, and ownership, payoff and return terms, each 25%. Loans, lease-purchase and equipment rentals serve different needs.

For ELDs, load boards and TMS products, each criterion receives a judgment from 0 to 5 in half-point steps: 5 means an exceptional documented case with few material tradeoffs; 4 a strong case with manageable tradeoffs; 3 useful capabilities with meaningful tradeoffs; 2 substantial limitations; 1 a weak documented case; and 0 a documented failure to meet the basic requirement.

Fuel, insurance and financing use separately researched assessments. Documented product criteria receive judgments in five-point steps out of 100. Unknown criteria remain unknown and are omitted from the weighted product average. Actual prices, savings and approval are not inferred from product features or advertised maximums.

Relevant customer experience can contribute up to 60% as the number and breadth of distinct accounts increase. Accounts under two years old count fully, those between two and four years count half, and older accounts receive no current weight. A single source family is limited to 35%; syndicated copies count as the original source. Employee reviews, other product lines, company-selected testimonials and unrelated businesses are excluded. These are researched samples, not representative satisfaction surveys.

For these three categories, fixed editorial anchors place a combined judgment of 45 at 50 and 85 at 97. Evidence support then moderates that index continuously from 88% to 100%, reaching full support at 15 age-weighted accounts across at least two source families. Older-only evidence is limited to 90% support. Product coverage contributes a separate factor from 90% to 100%, based on the proportion of documented criteria. These factors express research limitations, not assumed dissatisfaction. We round once at the end and bound the result from 0 to 100. Equal evidence can produce equal scores; no company receives extra points simply to break a tie.

For ELDs, load boards and TMS products, we combine the weighted judgments without rounding. We then place that assessment on a relative scale using fixed category benchmarks from our September 2026 reviewed catalog. The lower benchmark maps to 55 and the upper benchmark to 97, with scores between them scaled proportionally. These are editorial reference points, not passing grades or customer satisfaction rates. Adding or removing a company does not change another company’s score. Equal assessments can receive equal scores. Missing information is never filled with zero or an assumed average, and changed research requires a new score review.

Factoring uses a relative editorial index with fixed scoring anchors. The documented product assessment weights getting paid 25, account tools 20, fees and available funds 20, and flexibility 20. Unknown dimensions remain unknown; we normalize the documented dimensions. Carrier experience can contribute up to 60% of the combined assessment, or 70% with sufficiently broad, systematically collected evidence. We discount older accounts, remove duplicates and limit the influence of feedback concentrated on one platform. Evidence coverage moderates the resulting score before conversion to the public scale. Final scores may include a documented publisher adjustment of up to three points; the underlying research calculation is retained. A score of 91 is an editorial index, not 91% customer satisfaction or a market percentile. Small differences do not establish a better deal for every carrier.

When firsthand feedback is limited, a separately versioned assessment evaluates documented capabilities, published terms and the buying tradeoffs. It does not establish measured reliability, realized savings or customer satisfaction. A historical score describes a past offering, not current availability.

Scores express editorial opinion, rather than a success probability or customer star average. Advertising, inquiries and commissions do not enter the calculation or determine the judgments.

We retain dated research records privately, check service relevance and duplicates, and distinguish customer experiences from published product facts. A customer-feedback synthesis needs at least three documented reviews; a recurring theme needs at least two distinct accounts. Company-selected testimonials do not establish an independent customer consensus.

Assessments are checked and approved before publication. They are stored editorial versions, rather than opinions generated for each visitor. Missing, changed or withdrawn evidence removes the affected score until reassessment. We can still publish a factual buying assessment when customer feedback is limited.

Product-documentation links let you check relevant prices and terms. If something has changed, suggest a correction.