Methodology

Claims should survive a recovery test.

Our pages are designed as decision records: a direct answer, the assumptions behind it, evidence required to trust it, and failure conditions that could reverse it.

Evidence hierarchy

  1. Reproduced recovery evidence: timed restores, logs, screenshots, checksums and application-level validation from a defined environment.
  2. Binding product material: current contracts, service descriptions, security documentation and plan-specific technical references.
  3. Official documentation: dated product guides, API references, release notes and support articles.
  4. Vendor statements: sales responses and public claims, labeled as unverified until reproduced or made contractual.

How comparisons are built

We start from a recovery requirement rather than a feature list. Each material difference is expressed as a pass/fail question with a required artifact. Plan names, regional availability and licensing are time-sensitive, so readers should confirm them before purchase.

Update policy

Architecture pages are reviewed annually or after a material infrastructure change. Platform pages are reviewed quarterly. Buying guides are reviewed every three months and before a major procurement cycle. The review date on a page means its decision model was checked; it does not guarantee that every vendor plan remains unchanged.

Commercial independence

No vendor can pay for a ranking or remove a documented failure mode. If affiliate links are introduced, they will be disclosed near the relevant link and will not change the technical criteria. We may earn a commission without increasing the buyer’s price.

What this publication does not replace

These guides are educational material, not incident-response, legal, insurance or compliance advice. During an active incident, preserve evidence and coordinate restoration with authorized security, legal and business-continuity leaders.