How Financeradar publishes
Editorial policy & process
Every product page, rating, and guide on Financeradar follows the same rules: primary sources only, every rate dated, one named editor responsible, and no provider influence at any step. This page is the public version so readers, providers, and search engines can hold us to it.
Who writes Financeradar
Editorial content on Financeradar is written and signed by Louis Corneloup, founder of Financeradar and Dupple, the publisher behind 5 newsletters reaching 720K+ subscribers. He is the editor responsible for every rating, product page, and guide published under the Financeradar byline.
Editorial sign-off means the editor has read the page end to end, checked every number against its primary source, and confirmed it says what we would tell a friend asking the same question. Pages that fail that bar do not ship.
Editorial team: 1 named editor, 0 anonymous staff writers, 0 sponsored bylines. If named contributors join, they will be disclosed on this page with verifiable profiles.
Sourcing standards
- Rates and fees come from the issuer's own pages: rate sheets, pricing and terms documents, account disclosures. Never from another comparison site, a press release, or memory. Every figure is stamped with the date we verified it.
- Track-record claims (years operating, regulatory actions, failures, fund outcomes) are grounded in regulator filings and public enforcement records: SEC, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, state regulators. If the record is disputed or unclear, we say so on the page.
- Fine print is read, not summarized from marketing. Promotional expiry dates, balance caps on teaser APYs, bonus spend requirements, and early-withdrawal penalties come from the actual terms document, with the relevant clause noted.
- Graveyard entries (closed, failed, and renamed products) cite primary documents: bankruptcy filings, wind-down notices, regulator statements, official announcements. We do not characterize a failure beyond what the record supports.
- Verdicts reflect the editor's judgment applied through the public rubric at /how-we-rate. When the honest answer is "it depends on your situation", we write that instead of forcing a winner.
Fact-checking
Every numerical claim is checked against a primary source before publication: rates, fees, minimums, founding years, regulatory events. If a claim cannot be traced to a primary source, it is left out or flagged as "reported" with the source linked inline. Product and institution names follow the provider's own usage.
What gets fact-checked, by content type
APY, APR, annual fee, minimums, credit and accreditation requirements, promotional terms. Each with its own verification date.
Every recommended product re-checked against the issuer's page at publication. Every rate cross-checked against the product page.
Head-to-head numbers verified field by field against issuer terms documents, not marketing pages.
Years operating, enforcement actions, and failures verified against regulator filings and public records.
Closure dates, causes, and fund outcomes tied to filings and official notices before the entry publishes.
How we use AI
We use AI to assist research: gathering candidate products, drafting structured summaries, and flagging changes on issuer pages. The rule that governs all of it: every published number is grounded in a primary source, an issuer page or a regulator filing, checked by a human, and a human editor is responsible for every page. AI output that cannot be traced to a source does not ship.
- Research assistance and product discovery
- First drafts of structured summaries, reviewed by the editor
- Monitoring issuer pages for rate and fee changes
- Normalizing terms data across providers
- Publishing a rate or fee without primary-source verification
- Final verdicts, ratings, or recommendation language
- Fabricating reviews, returns, or track-record claims
- Long-form content without a substantive human rewrite
Corrections & re-verification
When a factual error is found, a wrong rate, a misstated fee, a claim a provider disputes with evidence, we fix the page and update the "as of" stamp so readers can see when the number was last verified. Material errors get a brief correction note on the page. We do not silently rewrite history.
Pages are also refreshed proactively: rates are re-verified on a schedule, and any number flagged as stale is re-checked before it appears in a ranking again. The date on a number reflects an actual verification against the issuer's page, not a script touching a timestamp.
Provider disputes with a primary source attached are re-verified with priority. Vague "please remove this negative line" emails without supporting facts get a polite no.
Independence & conflict of interest
No provider can pay for placement, edit a review, or remove a con. Financeradar earns affiliate commissions on some product links, disclosed on the page, and those commissions have no effect on scores, rankings, or coverage. Products with no affiliate relationship are covered under exactly the same rubric as products with one.
The editor's conflict-of-interest disclosures
- No equity stake or advisory role in any provider or platform covered on Financeradar.
- Founder and CEO of Dupple, the parent publisher. Dupple newsletters carry paid sponsorships; those sponsorships buy nothing on Financeradar.
- Personal accounts with some covered institutions (used for ordinary banking and testing). Disclosed in the written take where relevant.
- Affiliate relationships exist for some products and are disclosed on the page. They never affect the rating; see /how-we-rate § 4.
The full revenue and disclosure policy lives at /how-we-make-money.
Spotted an error or want to push back?
Email louis@dupple.com with the URL and what you think we got wrong. Corrections are welcome and treated as a favor, not a nuisance. Providers disputing factual claims should include a primary source we can verify; the page and its "as of" stamp get updated once the evidence checks out.
Methodology disputes (you think a criterion is wrong, or a rating does not reflect reality) are welcome too. Bring a counter-example and we will document the outcome, including the cases where we change the page and the cases where we do not.