- Home
- How We Score
Where the LegitBoosting Method Stops Short
Ratings here begin with a purchase: someone on this team pays for a boost using a live card, on an account we own, then records what happens next. 288 paid orders sit behind the numbers you see, and the whole set gets re-audited monthly, with the most recent pass closing on July 10, 2026. No service has ever bought a position here, and none of them sees a finding before readers do.
How We Build the Score
Trust Scores land on a 0-100 scale, built from five weighted inputs that hold identical proportions across every service we test. Account safety carries 35% because it covers the one category of damage money cannot undo: a banned account, a penalty flag on a profile you have played for years, or a login still sitting in a stranger's password manager. Slow delivery costs you a week. A ruined account costs you the account. Price transparency, buyer feedback and support quality all matter, and all of them sit below safety for that reason.
| Factor | Weight | What we measure |
|---|---|---|
| Account safety | 35% | Whether the seller keeps the profile invisible while work is happening, connects from somewhere plausible for the region the account plays in, how credentials are stored and who inside the operation can read them, whether ToS risk is stated in writing rather than waved away, and what condition the account comes back in once work stops. |
| Delivery reliability and speed | 25% | Whether the orders we funded actually finished, whether work began when the site said it would, and whether what got delivered matched what was bought. Stalls mid-order, silent handovers to a second worker and quiet slippage against the estimate quoted at checkout all get logged here. |
| Pricing transparency | 15% | We compare the figure on the product page with the figure the card is charged, sweep the configurator across ranks and regions to find where the curve jumps, hunt for charges that appear once at checkout and nowhere earlier, then establish whether refund terms sit somewhere a buyer can read them before paying. |
| What buyers report | 15% | Feedback that carries a verifiable purchase behind it, filtered for astroturf. What we read for is the shape of the complaints and how a seller answers a public one, because raw volume tells you close to nothing on its own. |
| Talking to support | 10% | Real tickets raised from our own orders, timed and graded on whether the reply was competent or a copy-paste. Each service also gets one deliberately awkward request, usually a refund question with an uncomfortable premise, and whatever comes back goes in the file. |
Trust Score Bands
A result of 90-100 earns the Excellent label, 75-89 reads as Good, 60-74 as Fair, and anything below 60 is filed Poor with the reasoning spelled out in the write-up rather than left to the badge.
The Checks We Run
- After The Handover. As soon as a boost gets marked delivered, we re-enter the account and inventory whatever the seller left there: the active session list, device and location history, linked app authorizations, and any token that would let someone reconnect later. A fresh login secret goes in at that point, set by us, and we come back a day later to see whether anything tried the old one. Traces get screenshotted and attached to the order record, so a service that leaves doors open loses points against a document, not against a hunch.
- Reading The Feedback. Public reviews get audited before they count toward the 15% they carry. We pull the timeline first, because a cluster of entries landing across two days after months of silence reads as bought, and identical phrasing turning up under unrelated names reads the same way. Recycled screenshots, repeat reviewers under fresh handles, and profiles created the week they posted come out of the count. Whatever survives that filter is what we weigh, however thin the remainder turns out to be.
- Refunds, Actually Filed. A written policy proves nothing until someone tries to use it, so on a subset of the 288 we trigger the refund path deliberately: an order that stalls, or a result that does not match what was purchased. We take the claim through to money landing back on the card, or to the point where replies stop. How many days it took, who answered, whether a chargeback threat was needed to move things along - that part never appears on a policy page, and it is the part that decides this input.
Keeping It Honest
We do not sell placement here, and our own budget paid for each order sitting behind a score. Three rules hold that line:
- Affiliate links exist on these pages and they do pay for the testing, but they are attached only after a score is finalised. A commission has never moved a service up the table or added a point to its Trust Score.
- Test purchases go through anonymous buyer accounts and ordinary payment methods, funded by us, so nobody on the other end can spot a reviewer and roll out the polished version of their service.
- Ranking positions are not sold. No operator can pay for a higher place, and no operator has ever had a negative finding taken off a page because they asked, complained or threatened.
Corrections Policy
We get things wrong sometimes, and pricing in particular moves faster than any monthly pass can keep up with. If something on this site looks off, write to corrections@legitboosting.com, quote the page and tell us what looks wrong. Every report gets checked against our order logs and the receipts from the run it refers to before anything on the page changes.
The Person Doing the Testing
Colin Hayes, QA Lead. Colin spent years as a QA tester on a live-service shooter and treats a boosting site exactly the way he treated a build queue: repro steps, screenshots, and a written result for every claim. He funds the 288 orders behind these ratings, runs the monthly re-audit himself, and signs off on the findings, including the ones that make a well-liked service look worse than its own marketing does.