Return case first
Every review begins with the underlying return engine: rent, loan yield, appreciation, operating leverage, or optionality. If the return case is weak or poorly explained, the platform does not score well.
Methodology
How we evaluate alternative investments.
The framework is simple: understand how the product makes money, what could impair that return, how much liquidity the investor gives up, and whether the complexity is justified by the payoff.
Liquidity as a first-order risk
Illiquidity is never treated as a footnote. Redemption windows, lockups, secondary-market limitations, and practical exit constraints are part of the core evaluation.
Fees after marketing
We compare management, servicing, performance, transaction, and other embedded economics because net outcomes matter more than surface-level yield or branding.
Fit over hype
The best platform is not universal. It is the one that matches the investor's access level, time horizon, complexity tolerance, and portfolio objective.
How the four-part platform score works
Each platform receives four scores with equal weight. The displayed score is their average, rounded to one decimal place. Compensation and referral arrangements do not change the calculation, and unsourced public review averages are not included.
Accessibility
Access status and minimum investment. Broader access and lower minimums score higher because fewer investors are excluded before evaluating the opportunity.
Liquidity
The practical ability to exit. Daily or straightforward access scores higher than limited windows, gates, secondary-market dependence, or multi-year lockups.
Simplicity
How much structure-specific knowledge and ongoing monitoring the investment demands. A lower operational burden scores higher.
Return-case clarity
How clearly the platform connects investor returns to income, appreciation, or both, with a modest penalty for higher-risk structures.
The score is a comparison aid, not a forecast of returns or a statement that a platform is suitable for a particular investor.
How facts are checked
Platform terms are checked against official help centers, offering documents, regulatory filings, and regulator guidance. Source links show when they were observed. If a material term cannot be verified, the page should identify the uncertainty instead of estimating it.
When pages are reviewed
High-intent reviews, comparisons, and best lists are reviewed at least every 180 days and sooner when a platform changes fees, minimums, access rules, liquidity terms, or ownership. The visible review date records a completed check, not a cosmetic timestamp change.
How corrections are handled
When a material factual error is confirmed, we correct the page, update its review date, and add a visible correction note when the change affects the conclusion. Routine source refreshes and copy edits are not presented as corrections.