Our Methodology
The rubric, fully published. Nothing hidden.
Every essential oil and every brand on this site is evaluated against the same set of criteria, in the same way, with no exceptions. Here’s exactly how it works.
Transparent · Consistent · Open to scrutiny
Most review sites tell you what they recommend. Almost none of them tell you why — what criteria they used, what they weighted, what they ignored. That gap is where bias hides.
This page is our attempt to close that gap. Every brand we review and every oil we profile goes through the same evaluation process, with the same scoring rubric, applied by the same editorial team. When we recommend a product, you can trace exactly how it earned that recommendation. When we criticize one, you can see exactly which criteria it failed.
If we ever change our methodology, we will say so publicly and re-score any affected brands. Methodology drift is how review sites lose credibility over time, and we’d rather be predictable than convenient.
The Scoring Rubric
Five criteria. One hundred points.
Every brand and every oil is scored across five categories, weighted by importance to the buyer.
Third-party testing transparency
Does the brand publish GC/MS reports for every batch? Are the reports independently verified? Can you trace a specific bottle back to its test?
Sourcing transparency
Does the brand disclose where each oil is grown, who grows it, when it was harvested, and how it was distilled? Vague country-of-origin claims don’t count.
Price per milliliter
How does the brand’s pricing compare to the rest of the market for the same oil at comparable quality? Premium pricing must be justified by something other than marketing.
Certifications and standards
USDA Organic, Ecocert, kosher, fair trade, sustainability certifications. We weight verified third-party certifications heavily; self-issued seals not at all.
Company practices and ethics
Sustainability commitments, labor practices, fair compensation for growers, environmental impact, regulatory history, customer service track record.
The criteria, expanded
What each category actually measures.
The headline is the rubric. Here’s the rigor behind each score.
Criterion 01 · 30 Points
Third-party testing transparency.
Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, or GC/MS, is the industry-standard test for verifying what is actually inside an essential oil bottle. It identifies and quantifies every chemical constituent. A clean GC/MS report tells you whether a bottle of lavender is actually lavender, whether it has been adulterated with synthetic compounds, and whether its chemical profile matches what the label claims.
We award the full 30 points to brands that:
- Publish GC/MS reports for every batch, not just sample batches
- Use independent third-party labs (not in-house testing)
- Allow buyers to trace a specific bottle back to its test by lot number
- Make reports accessible without requiring an account or purchase
Brands that test in-house, that publish only “sample” reports, or that hide tests behind a login lose significant points. Brands that publish no testing data at all score zero on this criterion, regardless of how strong they are elsewhere.
Criterion 02 · 25 Points
Sourcing transparency.
Where an essential oil comes from matters more than most buyers realize. The same plant grown in different regions, harvested at different times, or distilled by different methods can produce dramatically different oils. Bulgarian lavender, French lavender, and English lavender are all real things, and they smell and behave differently.
We award full points to brands that disclose, for each oil:
- The specific country and region of origin
- The grower or cooperative they buy from
- The harvest date or year
- The extraction method (steam distilled, cold pressed, CO2 extracted)
Vague claims like “ethically sourced” or “from the finest farms” earn zero points without specifics behind them. Brands that source oils from a single farm or cooperative they have a long relationship with score higher than brands that buy on the open commodity market.
Criterion 03 · 20 Points
Price per milliliter.
Price alone tells you almost nothing about quality. What matters is price relative to the market for the same oil at comparable quality. A $40 bottle of lavender is reasonable if it is rare, certified, and traceable to a specific harvest. The same $40 bottle is a marketing tax if equivalent quality is available for $15.
We calculate price per milliliter for every oil, then compare it to:
- The median market price for that specific oil at similar quality
- Direct-to-consumer brands selling the same oil with verified testing
- Bulk wholesale prices for the underlying material
Brands earn full points when their pricing reflects genuine quality differences. Brands lose points when premium pricing is driven by marketing structure rather than what is in the bottle. We do not penalize brands for being expensive when the expense is justified, but we do flag pricing that comes from layered distribution.
Criterion 04 · 15 Points
Certifications and standards.
The essential oils industry is full of certifications, and most of them are meaningless. “Therapeutic grade” is a marketing phrase invented by brands, not a regulated standard. The same is true of “pure,” “premium,” and most other unverified labels.
We give weight only to certifications that are independently verified by recognized bodies:
- USDA Certified Organic
- Ecocert and similar international organic certifications
- Fair Trade certifications from recognized bodies
- Kosher certifications from established agencies
- Sustainability certifications such as Rainforest Alliance, where applicable
Self-issued certifications, marketing terms, and trademark-protected phrases earn zero points. A brand can score full points here without any marketing labels at all if their independent certifications are robust.
Criterion 05 · 10 Points
Company practices and ethics.
The smallest weighted criterion, but the one most likely to evolve. We look at how a company operates beyond what is inside the bottle. This includes how growers are compensated, what the company does about environmental impact, whether it has a regulatory history with the FDA or FTC, and how it treats its customers when something goes wrong.
Specific factors we evaluate:
- Published sustainability commitments with measurable progress
- Fair compensation practices for growers and farmers
- Regulatory warning letters or legal actions
- Customer service responsiveness and return policies
- Transparency about company ownership and leadership
Points are awarded for documented practices, not aspirational marketing. A brand that quietly does the right things scores higher than one that talks about doing them.
A rubric is only honest if you publish it before the scores.
Editorial Standard · Essential Oils Index
The Review Process
How a brand earns its score.
Every brand review on this site follows the same six-step process. No shortcuts, no exceptions.
Public information gathering
We collect everything the brand publishes: their website, GC/MS reports, sourcing pages, certifications, leadership team, regulatory history, and customer-facing documentation. This information is logged and dated so we can show our work.
Product sample evaluation
Where possible, we evaluate actual products. We purchase samples through normal retail channels — not through trade accounts or with company permission — to make sure we are seeing what regular buyers see. Samples are evaluated for label accuracy, aroma profile, viscosity, and consistency across batches.
Independent verification
Claims that can be independently verified are checked against external sources: certification body databases, FDA enforcement records, state business registries, and published trade information. Claims we cannot verify are noted as such in the review.
Rubric scoring
Each of the five criteria is scored independently by a member of the editorial team, with the score and reasoning documented. Where reasonable people might disagree, the rationale is published so readers can decide for themselves whether we got it right.
Second review
Before a review is published, a second editor reviews the scoring, the supporting evidence, and the conclusions. Disagreements are resolved by going back to source material, not by averaging opinions.
Publication and continuous review
The review is published with its score and full reasoning. We re-evaluate brands at least once a year, and immediately if material changes occur (new testing protocols, regulatory actions, ownership changes, major product line updates).
Financial Transparency
How money flows through this site.
The most important thing to understand about our methodology is that none of our revenue depends on which brand a reader chooses. Here is exactly how we are paid and why it does not influence what we recommend.
Display advertising. We earn revenue from Google AdSense and similar ad networks. These ads are served algorithmically and we have no relationship with the brands being advertised. We do not see ad revenue tied to specific reviews, and we cannot promise advertisers anything about how their products are reviewed.
Affiliate commissions. When you click an affiliate link on our site and make a purchase, the brand pays us a small commission at no extra cost to you. Affiliate links are always disclosed inline and at the top of relevant pages. Crucially, we earn similar commission rates across the brands we partner with, so we have no financial incentive to recommend one over another.
What we never do. We do not accept payment for reviews. We do not accept payment to rank one brand above another. We do not accept free product in exchange for coverage. We do not partner with brands on sponsored content. We do not let advertisers preview or influence reviews before publication.
What we will do if our model changes. If we ever introduce new revenue streams (newsletter sponsorships, premium memberships, paid courses), we will disclose them prominently on this page and on every page they affect. Transparency about money is the only way reader trust survives the long term.
Intellectual Honesty
What this methodology cannot do.
Every rigorous methodology has limits. Pretending otherwise is how review sites become sales pages. Here are the limits of ours.
We cannot test every batch. A GC/MS report we cite was true at the time of that batch. Quality can vary between batches even from the same brand. We weight brands that publish per-batch testing because it is the only way to know what is in the specific bottle you receive.
Our rubric reflects our priorities. We weight third-party testing transparency at thirty percent because we believe it matters most. A reader who weights price differently, or who values certifications above sourcing, could reasonably reach different conclusions using the same underlying data. We have tried to make the data underneath every score visible so readers can recalculate against their own priorities.
The industry changes faster than reviews. Brands acquire each other, change ownership, restructure their supply chains, and update their practices. We re-evaluate brands at least annually and update immediately for material changes, but there is an inevitable lag between when something changes and when our review reflects it. If you notice something we have missed, please tell us.
Personal experience matters too. Our methodology evaluates brands. It cannot evaluate whether a specific oil will work for you. The research on essential oils is genuinely uneven, and individual responses vary widely. We try to be honest about what the evidence does and does not support, but no rubric can replace your own informed judgment about your body and your circumstances.
Methodology Questions
The questions readers ask.
How our methodology gets applied in practice — and how we handle the gray areas.
Do you give brands a chance to respond before publishing?
For factual matters, yes. If our review will contain a specific factual claim about a brand (a regulatory action, a sourcing detail, a quality issue), we contact the brand for verification before publication. For evaluative judgments based on public information, we do not. A brand’s right to respond is a right to correct facts, not a right to influence opinion.
When a brand provides additional information that changes our scoring, we update the review and note the update publicly.
How do you handle MLM brands differently from direct-to-consumer brands?
We apply the same rubric to every brand regardless of business model. An MLM brand can earn a high score if its third-party testing is robust, its sourcing is transparent, and its oils are well-priced relative to their quality. A direct-to-consumer brand can earn a low score if those factors are weak.
That said, MLM pricing structures often allocate a significant portion of revenue to distributor commissions, which can push retail prices above what equivalent quality would command in the direct-to-consumer market. We note this in our reviews because it is relevant to the “price per milliliter” criterion, not because we are biased against the business model itself.
What happens when you change your methodology?
Two things. First, we announce the change publicly on this page and explain why we made it. Second, we re-score every brand that has been previously reviewed under the new methodology and update their scores. The old scores remain visible in the revision history so readers can see the change.
We will not silently update methodology to favor or disfavor specific brands. If a methodology change would predictably benefit one brand, we name that brand in the change announcement.
Can a brand pay to be reviewed?
No. We prioritize reviews based on reader demand and market significance. Brands cannot purchase a review slot, expedite their review, or pay to have an existing review updated. If a brand believes we have published something inaccurate, they can contact us with documentation and we will evaluate the correction request on its merits.
Why isn’t there a single “best brand” recommendation?
Because the answer depends on which oil you are buying and what you value most. The brand that ranks highest on lavender may not be the brand that ranks highest on frankincense, because sourcing varies oil by oil. A reader who prioritizes organic certification will weight criteria differently from a reader who prioritizes price. Our oil-specific buying guides give per-oil recommendations rather than a single sitewide pick, and we explain the trade-offs in each one.
How do you handle conflicts of interest from staff?
Every member of our editorial team discloses any financial relationship with brands in the essential oils industry before working on a related review. Anyone with a current or recent financial interest in a brand cannot participate in reviewing that brand. Disclosed relationships are noted on author pages and at the bottom of relevant articles.
Because we are based in Utah, many people we know personally are connected to one company or another. Personal relationships are disclosed when relevant, but they do not automatically disqualify someone from a review the way financial relationships do.
Can I see the raw scoring for a specific brand?
Yes. Every brand review on this site includes a breakdown of the five rubric scores, the reasoning behind each one, and links to the source material that informed the score. If you find a gap or disagree with a score, our contact page is the fastest way to reach us. We have changed scores before based on reader feedback when the feedback included documentation we had missed.
See it in practice
The rubric, applied.
The methodology is the theory. The reviews are the practice. Read a brand comparison or an oil guide to see how this rubric translates into actual recommendations.