Our software review methodology
A ranking is only worth as much as the method behind it. This page is the public version of the software review methodology we use on every tool: how we choose what to review, how we test each product hands-on, how the 40-point scoring rubric works, how we compare two tools, how we make money, and why no vendor can buy their way up the list.
Why a review methodology matters
When you pick the software that runs your shop, the cost of a wrong choice is measured in months, not dollars. A tool your techs will not open puts you back on paper by week three. A platform priced for an enterprise you are not eats margin you cannot spare. And the switch itself, done in your busy season, can cost you booked jobs.
The usual alternative to a page like this is a vendor demo and a directory where the top spot goes to whoever paid for it. That process rewards the loudest marketer, not the tool that will actually get adopted in a driveway. A transparent, repeatable software review methodology is what closes that gap: the same selection rules, the same hands-on testing, and the same scoring criteria applied to every product. Everything below is that method, in the open.
Our three promises
Hands-on, not spec sheets
We run real jobs through every tool. We do not copy a feature list from a vendor page and call it a review.
One published rubric
Every tool is scored on the same 40 points, broken down below. Nothing is hidden in a black-box algorithm.
Zero pay-to-rank
No vendor can buy a rank, a score, or an award. If a tool is worse, it ranks lower, even the one that pays us.
How we choose which software to review
A good methodology starts before the testing does. We do not review whatever a vendor pitches; we review the field-service software that shops are actually weighing. Our selection process is driven by real demand and real problems, not by a marketing list.
We follow real search and shortlist demand
We track what owners search for and shortlist, from Google to Reddit threads, G2 and Capterra, so the tools we cover are the ones you are already comparing, not the ones with the biggest ad budget.
We start from documented pain points
We read the complaints, not just the feature lists: slow mobile apps, hidden payment fees, painful onboarding, weak reporting. A tool earns a place in the queue by being relevant to problems real crews describe.
We hold every candidate to the same bar
Selection is category-agnostic and vendor-blind. A tool with no affiliate program is just as likely to be reviewed as one that pays, and once selected it faces the identical rubric as everything else.
How we test each tool, step by step
Testing is hands-on and built around real-world scenarios, not a guided sales demo. Every product goes through the same six steps.
We set it up
A standard account, configured the way a real shop would. No vendor-provided accounts, no sandbox with the limits removed, no special access that comes with strings.
We set it up like a real shop
We import a customer list, build quote templates and configure the calendar the way an owner would, not the way a guided sales demo would.
We run a real week of jobs
Requests, quotes, scheduling, dispatch, invoicing and payments, on the desktop and on the field app in the driveway, including offline in weak signal.
We score it on the 40-point rubric
The same seven areas, same criteria, for every tool. Every score is re-checked against the fixed rubric before a number is final.
We write the verdict
Pros, cons, who it is for, who should skip it, and the real starting price with the catch on each tier spelled out.
We re-check and date it
Pricing and features move. Every page carries the date it was last tested, and we re-run the rubric each pass rather than editing old scores.
The evaluation criteria: our 40-point rubric
These are the evaluation criteria, in the open. Each area is weighted by how much it actually affects a field-service shop, so scheduling and quoting carry more than integrations. This is the whole scoring framework, and the same weighting powers both single reviews and head-to-head comparisons.
| Criterion | What we score | Max |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling & dispatch | Calendar speed, drag-and-drop, route-aware assignment, reminders, double-booking protection. | 8 |
| Estimating & quoting | On-site quote speed, templates, optional line items and upsells, mobile approval. | 7 |
| Invoicing & payments | One-tap invoicing, card and ACH on the spot, deposits, accounting sync. | 7 |
| Mobile app & field use | What techs actually use in the field: speed, offline reliability, photos, time tracking. | 6 |
| Reporting & visibility | Job costing, technician utilization, revenue and pipeline visibility, auditability. | 5 |
| Support, onboarding & pricing | Time to first real job, quality of help, whether you need a paid specialist, and cost-to-value. | 4 |
| Integrations | Accounting, payments and the depth of the wider integration library. | 3 |
| Total | The sum, presented as a score out of ten. | 40 |
How we turn 40 points into a score
Each criterion is scored against fixed, documented standards, the points are summed out of 40, and we present the result as a score out of ten so it is easy to compare at a glance. Here is what the bands mean.
A worked example
Transparency means showing the math, not just the rules. Here is a worked example of how a 40-point score comes together, one criterion at a time, so you can see exactly how a headline number is built. The figures below illustrate the method; they are an example, not a live product score.
| Criterion | Earned | Max |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling & dispatch | 7.7 | 8 |
| Estimating & quoting | 6.6 | 7 |
| Invoicing & payments | 6.5 | 7 |
| Mobile app & field use | 5.7 | 6 |
| Reporting & visibility | 3.9 | 5 |
| Support, onboarding & pricing | 3.7 | 4 |
| Integrations | 2.7 | 3 |
| Total | 36.8 | 40 |
36.8 out of 40 is 92 percent, which we publish as a 9.2 out of 10. Every score on Duhari is built exactly this way, and the per-area bars appear on each review so you can see where a tool won and lost its points.
How we compare two tools head to head
A comparison uses the same evaluation criteria and the same 40-point rubric as a single review, so the two numbers are genuinely comparable rather than two marketing pages set beside each other. For each matchup we apply the weighting for the category both tools compete in, put every scored area side by side, highlight where each one wins, and name a clear pick for most shops plus the one reason you might choose the other. The rubric that powers every comparison is the one published above.
How we stay independent and objective
Editorial independence is the point of the whole method. Duhari is not owned by a software vendor, no vendor sits on the scoring, and no relationship, commercial or otherwise, changes a rank or a number. Every tool is scored against the documented criteria and re-checked before a score is published, which keeps a first impression from quietly becoming a result. The rubric is fixed in advance so we cannot move the goalposts to favour a product after the fact.
How we make money
Some links on Duhari are affiliate links. If you buy through one, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. That is the entire business model, and it is fenced off from the reviews: we test every tool ourselves regardless, and a commission never changes a rank, a score, or a verdict. A tool with no affiliate program is scored and ranked exactly the same as one that pays the most.
How we keep reviews current
A methodology is not finished at publication. Vendors and readers can send corrections through our contact page, and we verify every claim against the live product before we change anything. When we do, we re-date the page so you always know how fresh the information is. Pricing changes are the most common; we treat a stale price as a bug, not a footnote, and we re-run the full rubric on a regular pass rather than quietly editing old scores.
Who reviews the software
Why our method beats the big directories
The large software directories are useful, but most run on vendor spend and self-reported data. Here is where our software review methodology differs.
| Duhari | Capterra & G2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Independent, not vendor-owned | ✓ | × |
| Every tool hands-on tested | ✓ | × |
| Pay-to-rank blocked | ✓ | × |
| One published scoring rubric | ✓ | Sometimes |
| Real starting prices published | ✓ | Rarely |
| Built for the trades | ✓ | × |
Software review methodology FAQ
What is your software review methodology in one line?
We select tools by real demand, run a real week of field-service jobs through each one, and score it on the same published 40-point rubric, against a fixed rubric with no pay-to-rank.
Can a vendor pay to rank higher or lift a score?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored slot and no way to buy a better score. If a tool is worse, it ranks lower, even the one that pays us the most in affiliate commission.
How do you choose which software to review?
By real search and shortlist demand plus documented user pain points from places like Reddit, G2 and Capterra. Selection is vendor-blind, and every tool then faces the identical rubric.
How often do you re-test and update scores?
Every review is re-run on a regular pass rather than edited in place, and each page carries the date it was last tested. Pricing changes are treated as a bug to fix quickly, not a footnote.
Do affiliate links affect the rankings?
No. We test every tool ourselves, and a commission never changes a rank, a score or a verdict. A tool with no affiliate program is scored exactly the same as one that pays the most.
Why 40 points instead of a bigger scale?
Because a bigger scale hides what matters. Forty points, weighted toward scheduling, quoting and the mobile app, keeps the score tied to the things that actually decide whether a shop adopts a tool.
Not sure which tool fits?
Start from the full ranking, filtered by your trade and crew size, and pick the right tool with honest scores and real starting prices.