Methodology

How we score partners.

No black box. Here's the rubric, the cadence, and the conflict-of-interest controls — written down so we can be held to them.

Methodology reviewed May 26, 2026

The goodx score.

A weighted average of 5 dimensions. Each dimension scores 0–10. The composite is normalized to 0–10 and shown on every provider card.

Every partner price displayed on goodx is verified through one of three channels, with timestamps shown via “Verified Xd ago” badges.

Partner sends us their current cash-pay and insurance-pathway prices via a structured monthly form.

An editorial reviewer signs up for the partner's intake (without completing payment) once per month to verify displayed price.

Users who see a discrepancy email editorial@; we re-verify within 48 hours and update or remove the listing.

Editor drafts content using FDA prescribing information + peer-reviewed sources.
Domain reviewer (MD / PharmD / RD / JD) cross-checks claims line-by-line.
Editor revises; reviewer re-approves.
Page publishes with a "Last reviewed" timestamp and reviewer name visible.
Re-review triggered by: FDA label update, new trial publication, partner change, or 6-month sweep — whichever comes first.

Editorial team operates on a separate reporting line from business development.
Reviewers are paid a flat fee per review — not commission, not equity, not partner-specific.
Commission rate has no input into the goodx score or default sort order.
Partners cannot review, edit, or approve articles before publication. Pre-publication draft is sent only for fact-check rights, not editorial control.
Negative editorial coverage of an affiliate partner has happened. We will list specific cases on a public corrections log once 3+ entries exist.

See a flaw in the methodology? Want to suggest a different weighting? Tell us — we publish methodology updates with the date of change.