INCLUDED
Evidence from the audited experience
The report reflects the pages, viewports and conditions captured during evaluation. Findings are tied to recorded evidence and marked when human review is still needed.
HOW WE JUDGE · METHODOLOGY 2.4OPEN JURY / 2027
Evidence guides the score. People set the standard.
Every evaluation combines recorded browser evidence, fixed scoring rules and careful interpretation. AI helps review the evidence; it does not choose the award.
Explore categoriesTHE PROCESS
Four clear stages
- STAGE 01
Capture
We record the submitted website across representative desktop and mobile views.
- STAGE 02
Measure
Automated checks collect performance, accessibility, SEO and technical signals.
- STAGE 03
Review
Structured visual and content review adds context that automated checks cannot see.
- STAGE 04
Decide
A versioned scoring policy applies the weights, penalties and award thresholds.
SCORING POLICY
Weighted by real experience
Each category contributes a published share of the final score. The bars compare relative emphasis; the labels show the exact weight used in the current policy.
Visual Design15%
User Experience15%
Mobile Experience10%
Accessibility10%
SEO10%
Performance10%
Content Quality10%
Technical Quality8%
Security Basics5%
Innovation4%
Conversion Clarity3%
AWARD THRESHOLDS (POLICY 2026.1)
Recognition requires performance
The overall score is a weighted total across the 11 published categories. Award qualification uses that score, then applies blocking conditions. Payment never changes these rules.
| Outcome | Overall score | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluated only | Below 80 | Full evaluation and PDF still delivered. Owner may publish a cyan Evaluated badge. Not an award. |
| Merit Award | ≥ 80 and below 90 | Strong foundations. Thoughtful execution. Essentials done well. |
| Excellence Award | ≥ 90 and below 95 | Distinctive craft across the experience. Work that goes beyond defaults. |
| Site of Distinction | ≥ 95 | Exceptional ambition and execution. A reference point, not the default outcome. |
A site receives at most one award tier: the highest tier its score qualifies for, unless a blocking condition applies.
Blocking conditions
Even with a qualifying score, an award is withheld when any of the following is true:
- The capture is incomplete or unreliable (login wall, bot block, geo-block, or critical pages unreachable), so evidence cannot support a public claim.
- Active malware, phishing, or clearly deceptive patterns are detected on the audited experience.
- Critical accessibility failures make a primary user flow unusable under the checks we run (this is not a WCAG certification).
- Manual review flags a low-confidence or ambiguous result that cannot be resolved without changing the evidence.
When a block applies, the buyer still receives the evaluation and recommendations. The public outcome is Evaluated only (or unpublished), with the block reason on the verification record where appropriate.
How to read a result
- Scores reflect the pages, viewports, and conditions captured during that evaluation.
- Historical public profiles stay tied to the policy version used when they were calculated.
- A retest creates a new evaluation under the current policy. It does not rewrite the old record.
Policy version: 2026.1 · Evaluation and Award Policy
Changelog
2026.1 — First public numeric award thresholds and blocking conditions.
WHAT THE RESULT MEANS
Clear boundaries
NOT CLAIMED
Universal compliance or security certification
Automated checks cannot prove full accessibility compliance. Security review is passive, and a result does not describe every page or every real-world visitor condition.
REFERENCE STANDARDS
Built on primary guidance
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative explains the limits of automated accessibility testing.
- Chrome Web Vitals defines the field metrics used for loading, responsiveness and visual stability.
- Google Search Central documents crawlability, indexability and useful-content fundamentals.