Understanding how we arrive at our verdicts and scores is important. This page explains our editorial process from start to finish.
How Programs Are Selected for Review
We prioritize programs based on a combination of membership size, consumer interest, and the frequency of questions and corrections we receive from readers. Major chain programs with tens of millions of members get reviewed first. We also prioritize programs that have recently undergone significant changes — devaluations, redesigns, or merger integrations — because those are the moments when existing coverage goes stale fastest.
We do not accept payment, sponsorship, or any other form of compensation from programs in exchange for review coverage. Programs cannot request or purchase a review, and we do not notify programs before publishing.
The 7-Tier Verdict System
Every program review ends with a verdict drawn from our 7-tier classification:
Best in Class — The program leads its category in meaningful ways. Generous earn rates, flexible redemptions, strong partner ecosystem, and a track record of not devaluing members without notice.
Industry Leading — Clearly above average for its category. May have one or two weaknesses but delivers strong overall value.
Worth It — A solid program. Straightforward value proposition, no major red flags, worth enrolling if you patronize the brand regularly.
Worth It With Caveats — The program has real value but with meaningful conditions attached — elite status required, redemption restrictions, limited partner options, or other factors that limit who actually benefits.
Situational — The program is not broadly useful. Value exists in specific circumstances (frequent heavy spenders, specific redemption types, certain geographies) but most members will see limited benefit.
Declining — The program has devalued, restricted, or structurally weakened its offering since our previous review, and is trending in the wrong direction. Worth watching but not worth optimizing around.
Devalued — The program has been significantly devalued — often abruptly — to the point where previous members’ accumulated balances or assumptions no longer reflect reality. We document what changed and when.
How Scores Are Calculated
Each program receives a score from 0 to 100. The score reflects a weighted composite across five dimensions:
- Earn rate value (25%) — What a typical member earns per dollar spent, benchmarked against category peers.
- Redemption flexibility (25%) — How easy it is to use what you earn, including blackout restrictions, expiration policies, and minimum redemption thresholds.
- Program stability (20%) — Track record of not devaluing unexpectedly. Programs with frequent unannounced devaluations are penalized here.
- Partner ecosystem (15%) — Quality and breadth of earn and redeem partners, including airline and hotel transfer partners for points programs.
- Member experience (15%) — App quality, customer service reputation, transparency of terms, and ease of enrollment and account management.
Scores are not permanent. We recalculate scores when material program changes occur and update the displayed score accordingly.
Fact-Checking Process
Every review is fact-checked against the program’s official terms and conditions, official app, and official website at the time of publication. We do not rely on third-party summaries or unofficial sources for program mechanics.
Each review displays a last reviewed date. This date reflects the most recent time an editor verified the core details of the review against primary sources — not just the publication date of the original article.
When a reader submits a correction or we discover that a program has changed terms, we:
- Verify the change against the program’s official source
- Update the affected sections of the review
- Note the change and the date in a visible update note within the article
- Recalculate the score if the change is material
- Revisit the verdict tier if warranted
Editorial Independence
Loyalogy does not use affiliate links. We receive no commission when readers click through to loyalty program sites. We do not accept sponsored reviews, paid placements, or any form of compensation from the programs we cover.
Our editors are not permitted to hold financial positions that could create a conflict of interest in their coverage area.
This independence is the foundation of what we do. If we were compensated by the programs we review, you would have no reason to trust our verdicts. We prefer to stay small and trustworthy rather than large and compromised.
Submitting a Correction
Loyalty programs change terms frequently — sometimes without announcement. If you notice something in one of our reviews that appears outdated or incorrect, please let us know via our contact form. Include the article title, the specific detail you believe is incorrect, and a link to the official source if possible. We review all correction submissions and will update the article if the information is verified.