Editorial policy and how we rate auction platforms
Last updated .
No platform pays to appear on this site, to rank higher, or to have a figure removed. We score platforms on six weighted criteria, led by the total cost to a private buyer. Fees come from each platform's published schedule, dated on the page and rechecked monthly.
Independence
There is no paid placement here and no sponsored ranking. Nobody buys a position in a comparison table, an inclusion in a list, or the removal of an unflattering number. We take no commission on a sale, and we do not accept free memberships, buyer accounts or fee waivers from platforms we write about.
The site is reader-supported. If we add affiliate links in future they will be labeled where they appear, and the rating method below will not change because of them. A platform that pays nothing and a platform that pays something are scored with the same table.
How we rate platforms
Every platform comparison uses the same six criteria and the same weights. The weights are deliberately tilted towards what a private buyer feels: what it costs in total, and whether they are allowed to bid at all.
| Criterion | Weight | What we look at |
|---|---|---|
| Total cost to a private buyer | 30% | Buyer's premium tiers, internet and gate charges, title and document fees, and what the all-in total looks like on a mid-range lot. |
| Access for the public | 20% | Whether a private buyer can bid directly, needs a broker, or is shut out by a dealer license requirement, and how that varies by state. |
| Payment and pickup terms | 15% | Payment deadlines and accepted methods, free storage days, gate hours, and what happens when a title is slow to arrive. |
| Listing quality and photos | 15% | Number and usefulness of photographs, whether damage is shown honestly, and how much of the description is generated rather than observed. |
| Inspection access | 10% | Whether you can view in person, send an inspector, get a condition report, or are limited to whatever the listing chose to show. |
| Dispute handling | 10% | The published arbitration window, what counts as grounds, and how a buyer starts a claim when a lot is not as described. |
Scores are our judgement applied to published terms, not a laboratory measurement. Where two platforms are close, we say they are close rather than manufacturing a ranking.
How we verify fees
Every fee figure is taken from the platform's own published schedule, and the page records the month it was checked next to the figure. We recheck the reference tables monthly and update the date whether or not the number moved, so a date that has not changed means we looked and found nothing new.
When a schedule varies by location, by membership tier or by payment method, we publish a range and say what drives it, rather than picking one number and presenting it as universal. If we cannot verify a figure from the source, it does not go in a table. A claim we cannot check is either written as a range with the month it was checked, or left out.
Corrections
Email [email protected] with the page and the figure you think is wrong, ideally with a link to the source. We check it, fix what is wrong, and add a dated note to the page saying what changed. We do not quietly edit a number and pretend it always said that.
Opinions and facts
A published fee, a stated rule and a legal requirement are facts, and they carry a source and a date. Anything else is our opinion, and it is labeled in the text with the words "in our view" or "we think" so you can weigh it accordingly. Our opinions come from buying and inspecting vehicles, which makes them informed, not authoritative.
Use of AI
Drafting assistance is used in producing pages on this site. Every figure and claim is checked by a named editor before publication, and the byline on a page is the person accountable for it. AI is not used to invent fees, complaints, incidents or quotations, and no page is published on the strength of a model's recollection of what a platform charges.