Skip to content
Start in BG
DE

Methodology: scoring, verification and updates

Current dataset: 37 providers, verified 17 July 2026.

Scoring methodology (100 points)

Scores measure published evidence, accessibility and transparency on the verification date. They do not certify legal quality or guarantee service outcomes. Missing information reduces the relevant transparency or trust score — it is never scored positively. Every overall score is the plain sum of the eight sub-scores below.

  • Price transparency15 pts

    Full itemised totals including state fees and recurring costs score highest; starting prices score mid-range; no public price scores zero. Missing information always reduces this score.

  • Service comprehensiveness15 pts

    Coverage across formation, registered address, banking, VAT, accounting and relocation services.

  • Remote-formation capability15 pts

    Fully remote including banking scores highest; mostly remote (bank visit possible) mid-range; in-person requirements or unclear processes score low.

  • English accessibility10 pts

    Full native-quality English site and support scores 10; partial 5; none 0.

  • German accessibility10 pts

    Same scale as English accessibility.

  • Banking & post-formation support10 pts

    Capital-deposit account, operational account, accounting and compliance support. Assistance or introduction does not guarantee account approval.

  • Trust & verifiability15 pts

    Named team, physical address, credentials, imprint, independent reviews and published terms.

  • Website usability & clarity10 pts

    Clarity of packages, contact channels, FAQs, and absence of misleading urgency or hidden costs.

Verification standard

  1. Official provider websites are the primary source for every field.
  2. Third-party sources are used only to corroborate identity, credentials and reviews — never to fill in prices or service claims.
  3. Each provider record stores its source URLs and its verification date.
  4. Fields that are not published anywhere are stored as not_disclosed; ambiguous statements as unclear. These are distinct states from “no” and are displayed as such — nothing is invented or silently inferred.
  5. Provider statements are labelled as claims unless independently verified.
  6. Estimated figures (like first-year cost estimates) are always shown together with their stored assumptions.

Update process

The dataset is a versioned JSON file maintained in the site’s repository. Data is never scraped or overwritten at runtime: every change is proposed, validated by an automated schema and score check (including duplicate-provider and duplicate-domain warnings), recorded in an editorial changelog and reviewed before it is committed. Each record shows its own last verified date; once a record is older than 90 days it carries an “Update recommended” badge until it is re-verified.

What the scores are not

Scores measure published evidence, accessibility and transparency; they do not certify legal quality or guarantee service outcomes. The comparison never declares an automatic winner: the side-by-side view highlights differences and keeps every provider’s caveat and sources visible so you can weigh them for your own case.

Disclaimer

This comparison is for general informational purposes only and is not legal, tax, accounting, banking or immigration advice. Prices, packages and services change frequently; every figure is a snapshot as of its last-verified date and must be confirmed directly with each provider. Inclusion does not represent endorsement, and provider statements are claims unless independently verified. Start in BG is itself one of the compared providers; this commercial relationship is disclosed here and the same published methodology is applied to every row.

← Back to the comparison