Editorial methodology — how we evaluate offers
The full methodology Bank Offers uses to verify, value, and rank bank bonuses and rate offers — versioned and published so readers can audit the process.
Source verification
Every offer listed on this site is verified against the issuing institution's own terms page on the date the listing is published or updated. The verification step requires that:
- The offer is currently live on the bank's official site.
- The published terms describe the bonus amount, qualifying activity, qualifying window, holding period, and any fees or restrictions.
- The terms page URL is captured and the listing links to it (with
rel="sponsored nofollow"when the link is an affiliate URL). - If material terms are unclear, ambiguous, or only available through a customer-service script, we either escalate to the bank for clarification in writing or skip the offer until terms are clear.
Each offer listing carries a "Verified: YYYY-MM-DD" stamp. If the date is more than 30 days old, readers should treat the listing as approximate and re-verify on the bank's site before applying.
Net value calculation
We compute the realistic net value of each offer to the reader after taxes, fees, opportunity cost, and time cost. The general formula:
Net Value = Bonus − (Bonus × Marginal Tax Rate) − Opportunity Cost − Fees Not Waived − Time Cost
Where:
- Bonus is the headline payout under the offer's terms, including any tiered amounts at the relevant tier for the modeled reader.
- Marginal Tax Rate is the assumed federal income tax rate. We use 24% as the default assumption — the middle of the most common bracket range for the demographic that pursues bank bonuses. State tax is not subtracted in the headline net value (it varies widely by state); readers should adjust for their own state rate.
- Opportunity Cost = required held balance × (benchmark APY − bonus-bank APY) × (days held / 365). The benchmark APY we use is a current competitive high-yield savings rate at the time of publication. We disclose the benchmark rate used in any specific valuation.
- Fees Not Waived includes any monthly maintenance fees not waived during the holding period and any one-time fees the offer doesn't waive.
- Time Cost is estimated at $50/hour (a default assumption that readers can adjust), with two to four hours estimated for a typical checking-bonus pursuit (setup, monitoring, closure) and proportionally more for larger or more complex offers.
The "catches" section
Every offer listing on this site includes an explicit "catches" section that calls out, in writing visible to the reader before they click out: the direct-deposit definition; qualifying-deposit and qualifying-window mechanics; account-must-remain-open period and any clawback structure; early-closure fee amount; monthly maintenance fee and the waiver mechanism; geographic restrictions; "new customer" lookback definition; tax form expected; and any other clause that materially affects whether the bonus reaches the reader.
If we can't surface a material clause, we either escalate or skip the offer. The catches section is not optional.
Date stamping
Every page on this site carries a "Last reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD" stamp in the page footer. Offer pages additionally carry an "Offers verified: YYYY-MM-DD" stamp at the top, distinct from the last-reviewed date because the underlying offers change more frequently than the surrounding editorial content. Readers should treat any offer listing older than 30 days as needing source verification before applying.
Expired offer archive policy
When an offer expires, we mark it as expired on the listing page rather than removing the page entirely. Expired entries remain visible for historical reference, with the expiration date noted and the listing flagged as no longer current. This serves readers researching whether a particular bank tends to repeat a specific bonus structure and protects against link rot in cross-references.
Permanently removed offers (rather than simply expired) are noted as such with the reason — typically because the bank discontinued the program entirely or because the offer was withdrawn under regulatory pressure.
Ranking signals (where rankings are used)
This site is not a comparison engine and most pages don't rank offers head-to-head. Where we do rank (e.g., "notable offers" lists or "best for X" recommendations), the ranking signals are explicit and tied to the methodology:
- Net value to the reader, calculated as above.
- Reachability — how realistic the qualifying activity is for typical readers.
- Track record — whether the bank's offer reliably pays out as documented (drawn from reader-reported experience).
- Terms transparency — how clearly the bank publishes the qualifying definitions.
We don't rank by headline bonus amount alone. A $500 bonus with a 24-month hold and a vague direct-deposit definition can lose to a $200 bonus with a 90-day hold and a permissive direct-deposit definition on net value, even though the headline disagrees.
Conflicts of interest
Where any conflict exists or could appear to exist, we disclose it at the page level. The standing disclosures:
- Affiliate revenue: some links earn us a commission; the relationship is marked on the link and disclosed at the top of every page. See disclosures for the policy.
- Editorial independence: the editorial team does not take direction from the advertising side. Whether an institution participates in an affiliate program is not a factor in coverage decisions.
- Gifts and hospitality: we don't accept gifts, paid travel, or non-monetary compensation from institutions we cover.
Correction policy
If we publish an error, we publish a correction. The correction appears on the affected page, dated, with a brief description of what was wrong and what's now correct. We don't silently update; transparency about errors is part of the editorial accountability the site is built on.
Corrections process: readers can report potential errors through the contact page. We aim to investigate and respond within a few business days. Significant corrections (factual errors that materially affect a reader's decision) are flagged with a date and a brief explanation on the page itself.
Versioning of this methodology
This methodology document is itself versioned. The current version is 1.0, last reviewed 2026-05-17. Substantive changes (new criteria, changes to the net-value formula, changes to disclosure thresholds) will increment the version number and be noted at the top of this page. Editorial-style edits without substantive change don't increment the version.
Past versions are not currently archived on the site; if you need to know the methodology as of a specific date in the past, contact us.
What this methodology doesn't cover
The methodology covers our process for evaluating bank bonuses and offer pages. It doesn't cover:
- Investment recommendations or rankings of brokerage platforms beyond their bonus offers.
- Reviews of bank service quality, app design, or customer-service responsiveness as standalone topics.
- Loan-side evaluation (mortgages, auto loans, personal loans).
Readers seeking those evaluations should look to publications focused on those topics. We focus on what we can do rigorously.