Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
The Anti-Brochure Series
The weAudit
Rating Methodology
How every score on the Processor Scoreboard is calculated: five categories, one hundred points, documented evidence only, and the same rules for every company, every time.
0-100 THE FORMULA
Applies to every profile in the series ยท Last updated July 2026
Regulatory & Legal Record
25 pts
Fee Practices & Contract Terms
25 pts
Complaints & Resolution
20 pts
Corporate Transparency
15 pts
Sales Channel Conduct
15 pts
Why This Page Exists
A rating you can argue with
Anyone can call a processor bad. We publish the formula so anyone, including the processors, can check our arithmetic. Every weAudit Score is built from documented, linked evidence, scored against the same rubric, with every deduction traceable to a source on the profile page.
weAudit is America’s #1 Credit Card Processing Auditing Firm. We read merchant statements for a living, on the merchant’s side of the table, for a low fixed monthly fee and never a percentage. The Processor Scoreboard applies what we see in that work to the public record: government actions, court filings, Better Business Bureau files including companies’ own responses, review platforms, and independent published analysis. Where our own anonymized audit casework informs a score, it is labeled as exactly that.
The Formula
Five categories, one hundred points
1. Regulatory & Legal Record 25 points
What governments, card networks, and courts have documented about the company’s merchant processing business. Federal enforcement (FTC, CFPB, and similar) carries up to 8 points; state attorney general actions up to 6; merchant class actions and comparable major litigation up to 6; card network fines and sanctions up to 5. Recent, larger, and merchant-facing matters weigh heaviest. Allegations are reported as allegations; settlements are not treated as admissions; and matters outside the merchant business are displayed rather than scored under Rule 2 below.
2. Fee Practices & Contract Terms 25 points
What the paper does to the merchant. Junk and undisclosed fees carry up to 7 points; documented rate escalation up to 6; termination fees and liquidated damages up to 6; renewal, cancellation-process, and equipment-lease terms up to 6. Documented specimens, a coded fee on a real statement, a termination charge above the contract’s own number, billing that survives a documented cancellation, drive the deductions, and the sources are linked beside each finding.
3. Complaints & Resolution 20 points
The merchant record at scale, normalized for company size under Rule 3. Complaint volume relative to merchant base carries up to 6 points; the breadth and severity of documented themes up to 6; fund-hold conduct up to 4; and resolution quality, whether the company responds, explains, and makes merchants whole, up to 4. A company can be enormous and still score well here. A company can also host the evidence against itself, and we score what the record shows wherever it lives.
4. Corporate Transparency 15 points
Whether a merchant can know what they’re paying and who they’re paying it to. Pricing disclosure carries up to 5 points; ownership and financial disclosure up to 4; leadership communications up to 3; and organizational stability up to 3. Statement-level opacity, coded line items, invisible wholesale costs, descriptors that defeat professional bookkeepers, is scored here under Rules 4 and 5, alongside undisclosed risk criteria that govern access to a merchant’s own funds.
5. Sales Channel Conduct 15 points
How the company reaches merchants and what happens on the way in. Documented misrepresentation carries up to 6 points; employee and sales-representative testimony up to 5; and channel structure and oversight, ISO networks, sub-resellers, embedded and captive distribution, post-sale underwriting, up to 4. Companies with no commissioned sales force are credited for the abuse category they eliminated and scored on the ones their model creates.
Reading the Number
What the score means
The weAudit Score runs 0 to 100. There are no letter grades and no curves. The bands below do the interpreting, and note where the condemnation begins: a score in the 60s is not a passing grade on this board.
Band
Meaning
90 – 100
A clean documented record. Rare in this industry, and reserved for companies whose paper, pricing, and complaint file all withstand scrutiny.
80 – 89
A generally fair record with isolated, documented issues a merchant should know about and can manage.
70 – 79
Industry average, which is not a compliment: meaningful documented concerns requiring active vigilance.
60 – 69
A documented pattern of merchant-hostile practices. Merchants should implement the specific countermeasures on the profile page.
Below 60
A documented record warranting extreme caution. Review the profile’s findings against your own statements and agreements immediately.
The Scoring Rules
Applied to every company, cited on every page
These rules were forged across the series and are binding on every rating, including future ones. Where a rule was established on a specific profile, the profiles cross-reference each other so readers can verify we apply it evenly.
Rule 1 Documented evidence only
Every scored finding traces to a linked source: a court record, a government release, a BBB file including the company’s own responses, a review platform, independent published analysis, or our own labeled audit casework. Allegations are scored as allegations, never as adjudicated fact. Settlements are not admissions. If we cannot document it, it is not in the score.
Rule 2 Displayed, not scored
Three kinds of matters appear prominently on profile pages but are excluded from the arithmetic: regulatory records of parent companies or consumer arms outside merchant processing (a bank parent’s banking fines; a fintech parent’s consumer-app penalties); investor and securities litigation; and single-merchant lawsuits, which we report as narrative rather than score as pattern. We display them because merchants deserve to see who they’re dealing with. We exclude them because the score measures the merchant processing business.
Rule 3 Complaints are normalized for size
A processor serving millions of merchants will accumulate more complaints than a boutique. Category 3 scores complaint volume relative to merchant base, then scores theme severity without any size discount, because a two-year fund hold is a two-year fund hold at any scale.
Rule 4 The coded-fee rule
Statement lines that cannot be read and validated in plain English draw transparency and fee-practice deductions. This covers interchange billed under internal codes that prevent validation, junk fees wearing acronyms, and bank descriptors engineered to blend into noise. The severity scales with what the code conceals.
Rule 5 The invisible-interchange rule
Flat-rate providers whose statements never show interchange at all, meaning the merchant can never see the wholesale cost or the provider’s margin, cannot score better on statement transparency than providers who merely code it. Simplicity is a product; concealment of the margin is its price; both are scored.
Rule 6 Price level is a fee practice
Disclosure does not launder cost. Where documented evidence, including weAudit’s own anonymized audit-library findings from real conversions, shows a provider’s effective pricing running persistently above transparent, auditable alternatives, Category 2 deductions apply even when every rate was published. A high price told to your face is still a high price.
Rule 7 The captive-channel rule
Distribution that removes a merchant’s practical ability to choose or fire the processor draws Sales Channel deductions: processors embedded in operating or accounting software, ecosystem defaults, and documented platform exclusivity deals. A merchant who arrived through a lock is volume that was routed, not a client who was won, and pricing discipline follows courtship, not capture.
Rule 8 The deferred-underwriting rule
Instant-onboarding providers whose documented record shows approval, acceptance of a customer’s payment, and then a post-payment determination of ineligibility with funds held draw Sales Channel deductions. An underwriting decision that happens after the sale is not disclosure; it is a trapdoor, and we score it wherever the model produces it.
Rule 9 First-party audit evidence, always labeled
weAudit’s own casework may inform scores and appears on profile pages under the heading From Our Own Audit Files, anonymized, with facts and professional opinion separately labeled. We hold our own evidence to the same standard we demand of statements: specific, documented, and where possible acknowledged in writing by the other side.
Rule 10 The arbitration caveat
A clean public court docket is scored as documented, and interpreted honestly: where a provider’s terms route merchant disputes into individual arbitration with class waivers, the absence of class actions partly reflects the drafting, not necessarily the conduct. Profiles note this caveat wherever it applies, so a near-perfect legal score is never mistaken for a verdict.
Rule 11 Precedent binds us
A deduction applied to one company applies to all comparable documented conduct, and profile pages cross-reference the precedents so readers can check. If we dock one processor for coded interchange, we dock the next for invisible interchange. Consistency is the entire value of a formula, and we invite readers and rated companies alike to hold us to it.
Rule 12 The score is the formula. The verdict is labeled.
Some profiles carry a closing note under headings like A Special Note from weAudit. Those are our professional judgment, informed by decades inside this industry, and they are deliberately separate from the score. The formula measures the documented record; the judgment weighs the danger. Readers get both, clearly labeled, and may weigh them as they see fit.
Boundaries
What a weAudit Score is not
It is not legal, financial, or professional advice, and it is not a prediction of your individual experience: terms vary by channel, agent, and negotiation, sometimes wildly within the same company, and several profiles document exactly that. It is not an adjudication: courts decide liability; we report records. And it is not permanent: companies change, records grow, and scores move with the documented evidence, in both directions. When a company corrects documented conduct, the score will say so.
Our independence, in one paragraph
weAudit accepts no compensation, referral fees, or advertising from any payment processor. No company can pay for placement on the Scoreboard, pay to improve a score, or pay to be removed. Our only clients are merchants, which is the entire reason a firm like ours can publish a page like this. Every rated company has a standing right of response, published unedited, and documented errors are corrected within 48 hours of verification.
The Scoreboard reads their record. We read your statements.
weAudit is America’s #1 Credit Card Processing Auditing Firm, founded by a Former Executive for the World’s Largest Credit Card Processor. We audit your statements every month for a low fixed fee, never a percentage, and we answer to no processor. Ever.
Get Your Statement Audited