Rating methodology, data sources, and affiliate independence — fully documented.
If you're reading reviews on a site that earns affiliate commission, you have a legitimate reason to ask: are these scores inflated to push purchases? That's a fair question, and it deserves a direct answer rather than a vague "I'm unbiased, trust me" disclaimer.
This page documents exactly how I calculate ratings, what data feeds into them, what keeps the scores from drifting upward, and why one toy scores 4.7 and another 9.2.
"A site that scores every product 9+ and never tells you who should skip something isn't reviewing products — it's writing sales copy with extra steps. Every review here includes a 'who should skip this' section for exactly that reason."
This site covers 69 products across six manufacturers: Lovense (31), LELO (24), We-Vibe (9), Womanizer (3), Arcwave (1) and Kiiroo (1). Every one of them is scored on the same published criteria, so a score here means the same thing whichever badge is on the box.
The split is uneven, and I would rather explain it than hide it. Coverage started with Lovense, so that catalogue is the most complete. The other five brands were added later and are still filling in. A brand having more entries is a reflection of how long I have been covering it — not a ranking, and not a recommendation.
Scores are calibrated across the whole set, not within a brand. When I say the Lush 4 scores higher than the Lush 3, that rests on genuine technical differences. When a product scores lower than most things here, it is because it serves a narrower use case — not because of who makes it.
The conflict of interest worth naming directly: some links on this site are affiliate links and may earn a commission on purchases made through them, at no cost to you. No manufacturer pays for coverage, placement or a score, and the commission is the single strongest reason to read my scores critically. What I do about it is documented below.
Every product, whatever the brand, is scored on the same nine criteria. Each one gives a mark out of 10, and the score is their weighted average, rounded to one decimal. If a maker does not publish a figure, that criterion drops out and the other weights scale up; the spec-transparency criterion is where missing data costs points. The grid was fixed before any score was computed, and every review shows its own breakdown under "How this score was calculated".
Runtime as the maker publishes it, ranked among the toys of the same category on this site: the longest-lasting gets 10, the shortest 0.
Price against the median price of the category: a toy at the median gets 7.5, cheaper scores higher (up to 10), dearer lower.
The verified-buyer rating the maker publishes, converted to /10 (for Lovense, the average of the Customer Scores on lovense.com). No published rating: the criterion drops out.
IP rating: IPX7 or IPX8 = 10, IPX6 = 8, IPX5 = 7, IPX4 = 5, lower = 3, none = 0.
Published decibels on a straight line: 30 dB = 10, 70 dB = 0. Few makers publish a figure; without one, noise drops out. One exception: the Domi 2, the toy I own. Lovense publishes no figure for it, so it uses my own iPhone reading on low, the level Lovense's published figures are given at.
1 year = 5, 2 years = 7, 3 to 4 years = 8.5, 5 years or more = 10.
Body-safe silicone = 10, other published materials = 6.
Long-distance control through an app = 10, an app without long distance = 6, no app = 2.
Share of eight key figures the maker publishes: battery, charge time, IP rating, noise, weight, size, material, warranty.
What the grid does not measure: how a toy feels. Sensation is personal, and the only toy I have used myself is the Domi 2, so feel is discussed in the text of each review, never turned into points.
No score comes from a single data point. Each review draws from:
What I don't use: manufacturer marketing claims, press releases, or sponsored content. I also don't use affiliate click data — a product that sells well through my links doesn't get a higher score because of it.
Scores on this site run from 4.7 to 9.2. Here's what each range means in practice:
| Score range | What it means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 9.0 and up | Excellent. The best of the 69 on the grid: the published figures are strong almost everywhere. | Diamo (9.2), Edge 2 (9.1), Osci 3 (9.0) |
| 8.5 – 8.9 | Very good. One or two weaker criteria the breakdown shows. | Lush 4 (8.8), Lush Anal (8.8), We-Vibe Jive 2 (8.7), Gravity (8.7) |
| 7.5 – 8.4 | Good. Clear limits: often price, a short battery or a missing figure. | Calor (8.4), We-Vibe Sync 2 (8.4), Womanizer Premium 2 (8.4), LELO Liv 2 (8.2) |
| under 7.5 | Fair. Loses points on several criteria. Only buy it if the review shows it fits your use. | We-Vibe Chorus (7.4), Gush 2 (7.3), LELO Ina Twist (7.2), Arcwave Voy (7.1) |
This is the most important section. Affiliate sites drift upward over time because every "buy this" generates income. Here's what specifically counters that:
Each review explicitly answers: who should skip this product, and what should they buy instead? I name the alternative and explain when it wins. Writing this for every product actively works against the incentive to recommend everything uncritically.
All 69 products are rated as a group. If I inflate one score, something else looks worse by comparison. Internal competition between products limits inflation without making the relative rankings implausible.
I read Reddit threads specifically looking for complaints. If a product has a documented connectivity issue, short battery, or fit problems reported by multiple verified buyers, that's in the review and affects the score. The community has no financial incentive to flatter Lovense — which makes it a useful check on my own potential bias.
Battery used to max out at 10 for any toy lasting 1.5 times its category median, so a 6-hour toy and a 3.5-hour toy looked the same. Since 12 October 2026 it is ranked inside each category, and every extra hour shows in the score.
When a maker does not publish a figure, I do not estimate it. The criterion drops out, the spec-transparency mark goes down, and the breakdown on the review says "not published".
Some product links on this site are affiliate links. When you buy through one, I may earn a small commission. The price you pay is identical whether you use my link or go to the retailer directly.
What this means in practice: I have a financial incentive for you to buy through this site. I do not have one to steer you toward any particular product — scores are set against the published rubric above, never against what a link pays, and no manufacturer pays for coverage, placement or a score.
The "Who should skip this?" sections regularly point readers to a different product, sometimes from another brand entirely, so the commercial structure doesn't stop me from being honest about comparisons.
I don't receive free products, sponsored posts, or payment from any manufacturer to review their products. Affiliate relationships are standard and disclosed on every page.
Until October 2026, Lovense toys were scored by hand on the six criteria this page used to list, and the other brands through a separate formula that squeezed all but one of them into 7.8–8.6. Two methods meant two scales, and part of the Lovense lead came from that.
Now every toy goes through the grid above, and scores moved both ways: the Lush 4 went from 9.4 to 8.8 (still the top G-spot vibrator), the Diamo from 8.0 to 9.2, the Kiiroo Keon from 8.2 to 4.7. Lovense still averages higher (8.2 against 8.0 for We-Vibe, 7.6 for Womanizer and 6.7 for LELO), mostly because its toys combine long-distance app control with lower prices — both are criteria you can check.
An 8 is a good toy with clear limits. Under 7, the breakdown on the review shows where the points went, usually price or missing data.
Questions about methodology? Use the contact page or read more about the site.