The four-point review applied to every marketplace.
Every entry in the directory is reviewed against the same four-point framework. The framework doesn't produce a numerical score — it produces an editorial verdict, a verification tier, and the contextual notes ("best for / skip if") that appear on every detail page.
The framework weights are not uniform across categories. Verification depth carries more weight in pharma (where regulatory risk is high) than in general wholesale. Field test response quality carries more weight in transactional marketplaces than in regulatory intelligence platforms. Where the weighting differs from the default, the marketplace's detail page notes the relevant emphasis.
The verification rubric — what each badge actually means.
Every marketplace in the directory has been editorially reviewed by B2BSources before inclusion. That's separate from supplier verification. The badges below describe how each platform vets its own suppliers — not whether B2BSources has checked the platform itself.
Platforms are assigned a tier based on the criteria below. We do not give partial credit — a platform that requires document checks for some categories but not others is rated as Mixed Verification, not Verified Suppliers. The strictest applicable definition wins.
A platform's verification tier is not a quality judgement. Self-listed platforms can be genuinely useful — IndiaMART surfaces a long tail of legitimate suppliers that no verified-only platform carries. The tier just tells buyers how much qualification work they need to do themselves.
The field test protocol — how we measure response quality.
It's easy to say a marketplace has good supplier response quality. It's harder to prove it. The field test exists to convert claims into numbers: how often suppliers reply, how fast, and whether replies are substantive enough to be useful.
Field tests are conducted by the B2BSources editorial team using anonymous buyer accounts. Inquiries reference realistic procurement scenarios but represent no commercial commitment. Suppliers are not informed they are part of a review — disclosed reviews bias results in ways that defeat the purpose.
Field test data is published in the "Field test results" section of each marketplace detail page. We publish the actual numbers, not aggregate scores — readers should be able to see the underlying response rate and reply time, not just a derived rating.
Field tests have honest limits, surfaced in section 07 below.
Editorial badges — what each one signals.
Five editorial badges appear across the directory. Each one has defined criteria; none are awarded informally or as part of a sponsorship. The criteria are listed below — if a platform meets them, the badge is applied. If a platform later stops meeting them, the badge is removed at the next review cycle.
Inclusion criteria — what gets listed.
Not every platform that wants to be listed makes the directory. Inclusion is editorial, not automatic. The criteria below define what we look for in considering a submission.
B2BSources covers both B2B marketplaces (transaction-oriented platforms with RFQ and inquiry workflows) and trade directories (supplier-indexed platforms used for sourcing discovery, often with inquiry functionality). The boundary between the two is increasingly blurry — many trade directories have added marketplace features and vice versa. Both are eligible for inclusion. Each listed platform is assigned a platform type (B2B marketplace / Trade directory / Hybrid) on its detail page so buyers understand what kind of tool they're evaluating.
- Operates as a B2B marketplace or directory with structured supplier/buyer functionality — not a generic Yellow Pages-style listing site
- Active for at least 12 months with continuous operation and visible commercial activity
- Genuinely active supplier base — at minimum 100 active suppliers with verifiable contact information
- Identifiable operating company with verifiable corporate registration in a jurisdiction with reasonable legal accountability
- Clear value proposition beyond aggregating supplier links — must offer at minimum inquiry workflow, search functionality, or supplier intelligence
- Platforms scraping suppliers without consent — supplier listings must be from suppliers who opted in, not lifted from other directories
- Platforms where the only visible suppliers are those who paid to be listed — if paid placement is the only path to visibility and free suppliers are either absent or hidden from search results, the platform doesn't meet the bar. Platforms where paid featured placement exists alongside a genuinely browsable free supplier base are eligible.
- Platforms with active fraud reports or unresolved regulatory action that materially affects supplier trust
- Single-vendor platforms disguised as marketplaces — if 80%+ of listings are one company's own products, it's a catalogue, not a marketplace
- Platforms refusing to disclose verification practices — if we can't describe what the platform checks, we can't list it credibly
A marketplace can submit itself via the marketplace submission form. Editorial review takes up to 14 days. We notify every submitter of the outcome — accepted, rejected, or paused pending additional information.
Review refresh cycle — how reviews stay current.
B2B marketplaces change. Verification policies tighten or loosen, fee models restructure, supplier bases shift, ownership transfers. A review that was accurate at first publication may not be accurate two years later.
The refresh cycle defines when reviews are re-checked against current platform reality. The default is a 12-month full re-review for every listing. Off-cycle re-reviews are triggered by specific events, listed below.
What we don't claim.
Trustworthy methodology is as much about what's excluded from the claim as what's included. The disclosures below are explicit limits — things B2BSources does not assert, regardless of how strong individual reviews might appear.
- We do not independently audit suppliers. Editorial reviews assess the platform's verification practices — not whether any specific supplier on the platform is trustworthy. Buyers remain responsible for direct due diligence on suppliers they choose to engage.
- We do not verify every certificate. Reviews describe what platforms claim to check (e.g., GMP documentation). We do not independently re-verify every supplier's certificate with the issuing authority — that's the buyer's responsibility for orders they place.
- Field tests are not statistically representative. Six inquiries per platform is enough to surface meaningful response patterns, but not enough for statistical claims about supplier base behaviour. Field test data is directional, not definitive.
- Reviews can be wrong. Methodology is applied uniformly, but editorial judgement is still judgement. We publish corrections via the process in section 08 when reviews are flagged as inaccurate.
- Inclusion is not endorsement. A platform being listed in the directory means it meets the inclusion criteria — not that we recommend buyers use it for every scenario. The "best for / skip if" framing on every detail page identifies where a platform fits and where it doesn't.
- Verification tier is not quality. A Verified Suppliers tier does not mean the platform is better than a Mixed Verification or Self-listed platform for every buyer. It means the platform does more upfront verification work — useful in some scenarios, irrelevant in others.
Corrections process — how to flag an inaccuracy.
If a review contains a factual inaccuracy — wrong founding date, mischaracterised verification policy, outdated fee model, missing certification — readers and marketplace operators can flag it via the corrections form. The process applies equally to readers and the marketplaces being reviewed.
What we will and won't change is explicit: we correct factual inaccuracies (wrong dates, mischaracterised features, outdated economics). We do not change editorial judgement (whether a verdict is positive or negative) on the basis of a marketplace's preference. Disagreement on judgement is permitted; replacement of judgement on request is not.
Submit corrections via the "Report inaccuracy" link at the bottom of any marketplace detail page, or directly through the contact form.