Research methodology
How we gather evidence, grade our confidence in it and evaluate technology vendors.
Sources we use
Our research combines structured interviews with practitioners, surveys, anonymised data from client inquiries, vendor briefings, checks with reference customers, and public filings and disclosures. Vendor claims are never counted as evidence unless they are confirmed by a customer or by data.
The confidence ledger
Every key finding carries one of three confidence grades, together with the number of sources that support it.
| Grade | What it means | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| High confidence | Consistent across several independent types of source and across segments. | Suitable to support investment decisions. |
| Moderate confidence | Supported by evidence, with some gaps or variation between segments. | Suitable to support a pilot with a defined review point. |
| Emerging evidence | Limited or recent evidence. | Monitor before acting. |
The Decision Lattice
Our vendor evaluations do not place every vendor on a single universal chart. Instead we score two things: proof, meaning capability confirmed with reference customers in production rather than in demonstrations, and fit, meaning how well a vendor suits a particular buyer’s size, regulatory position, existing systems and region.
Clients view the lattice in their own context, so the strongest option for a large private bank may differ from the strongest option for a mid-size enterprise.
Review and correction
Every piece of research has a review date, usually six months after publication. If new evidence changes a finding before then, we update it and record the change.