Independence
This site is an independent, non-commercial project. Nothing published here is written, reviewed, requested, approved or paid for by a card provider, and no page may imply otherwise.
That has a specific editorial consequence. We never write in the voice of a provider, never present ourselves as an official channel, and never use first-person plural to describe a provider’s product ("our card", "we offer"). Where a page discusses a named brand, it describes what people are searching for and what the underlying category is — not what the company promises.
- No advertising, affiliate links, referral parameters or sponsored placements
- No paid inclusion, guest posting, link insertion or content contributed by third parties
- No commercial, agency, reseller or partnership relationship with any issuer or marketplace
- No editorial decision made because a third party asked for it
- No page whose purpose is to move a reader towards a purchase
What may not be published
The prohibitions below are absolute. A draft containing any of them is rewritten or dropped; it is not published with a hedge attached.
| Prohibited | Includes | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Invented facts | Fees, rates, rewards values, credit limits, eligibility rules, company figures, dates | We cannot verify them and they change without notice |
| Trust signals we do not have | Star ratings, scores, rankings, awards, testimonials, review quotes, "best of" lists | There is no underlying data, so they would be fabrication |
| Provider term claims | Statements about what a specific named company charges, offers or approves | Only the provider can state its own terms accurately |
| Implied official status | Provider voice, official-support framing, logos used as endorsement | It would mislead readers about who they are reading |
| Transactional surfaces | Applications, logins, payment forms, credential or document requests | This site handles no accounts and no financial data |
| Advice framing | Tax, legal, accounting, credit or investment recommendations | We are not advisers and cannot know a reader’s situation |
What may be published
The permitted space is wider than the prohibitions suggest, because most of what a reader actually needs is structural rather than commercial.
- Definitions
- What a term means, how it is used in practice, and how it differs from adjacent terms.
- Structure
- How a card program is organised: liability, issuance, roles, settlement, administration.
- Mechanism
- How something behaves — for example, that limits are evaluated at authorisation rather than after posting.
- Common practice
- Patterns widely used in card program administration and internal control, described as patterns, not rules.
- Decision criteria
- The questions a company should answer about itself before choosing a card structure.
Every page must describe structure rather than assert product features. "Corporate cards are typically issued in the company’s name and carry company liability" is publishable. "This card has no personal guarantee" is not, because that is a term only the issuer can state. The methodology sets out how each claim in a draft is classified against this line.
Explanation, opinion and comparison
Explanation and opinion are kept visibly separate. Explanation is written in plain declarative prose. Editorial judgement — that a practice tends to work badly, that a control design usually creates friction — is written as judgement, with the reasoning shown, and never dressed up as a finding.
Comparisons follow the same rule and add one more: they compare categories and evaluation criteria, never named competitors’ commercial terms. It is legitimate to explain how charge and credit structures differ, or what to examine when assessing any provider. It is not legitimate to assert what a specific competitor charges. That constraint shapes pages such as brex vs other corporate card solutions and corporate card vs credit card.
Comparison pages may
- Set out criteria a reader can apply themselves
- Describe structural differences between card categories
- Explain which questions matter at which company size
- Name product categories and standard industry terms
Comparison pages may not
- Score, rank or declare a winner
- State a named provider’s pricing or contract terms
- Imply a recommendation through selective framing
- Present our judgement as measured evidence
Brands, trademarks and nominative use
Brand terms appear on this site because they are what people search for. They are used nominatively — to identify the subject being described — and not as an indication of source, affiliation or endorsement. Brex and related marks are trademarks of their respective owners, as stated on the disclaimer.
- Brand names identify the topic; they never label the publisher or imply a relationship
- No provider logos, brand colours or visual identity are used to suggest endorsement
- Card visuals on the site are original illustrations with placeholder digits
- Keyword terms appear where they read naturally and are never repeated for ranking
- Any request from a rights holder about brand usage is handled through the contact address
Corrections and conflicts of interest
We have a standing obligation to correct. If a reader shows that a statement is wrong, misleading or has become outdated, the page is amended and its update date changes. Substantive corrections — ones that change the meaning of a claim — are described on the page rather than made silently. The mechanics are on the fact-checking page.
On conflicts of interest: at present there are none to declare, because the project holds no commercial relationships of any kind. If that ever changed — any funding, sponsorship, affiliate arrangement or provider relationship — the disclosure would appear on the about page, on this page, and on every page the arrangement could plausibly influence, before that content was published or updated.
This policy is a statement of editorial practice, not a contract. Legal statements about using the site are in the terms of use and the disclaimer.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Would you accept payment to feature a provider?
No. There is no paid placement of any kind, and the absence of revenue attached to recommendations is the mechanism that keeps the comparison pages neutral. Any change to that position would be disclosed before affected content was published.
Why avoid star ratings when readers find them useful?
Because a rating implies a measurement. We do not hold account-level pricing, service or approval data for any provider, so a score would be invented rather than derived. Criteria plus structural explanation gives a reader something they can apply to their own situation instead.
What happens if a provider asks you to change a page?
A factual correction is assessed on the evidence like any other report and applied if it is right. A request to remove accurate structural explanation, or to add promotional framing, is declined. Either way the decision is editorial, not commercial.