Methodology
How we score, and how we keep it fair
We build one of the tools in this index. That is exactly why the method has to be public, the facts sourced and the weights adjustable.
The seven criteria
| Criterion | Weight | What earns a 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus source coverage | 20 | Cyprus case law and legislation, plus the European sources Cyprus lawyers cite (EU law, ECHR). |
| Source grounding | 20 | Answers cite real, linked judgments and laws, and say plainly when the sources are not enough. |
| Independence | 15 | Not owned, co-founded or distributed by a practising law firm that competes for the same clients as its users. |
| Open access | 15 | Anyone can sign up (lawyers, in-house teams, students, citizens), with a usable free tier and low entry price. |
| Platforms & integrations | 10 | Web, iOS, Android, and a connector (MCP) or API so it works inside ChatGPT, Claude and other assistants. |
| Transparency | 10 | Public pricing, a published description of how research works, and visible limits. |
| Speed | 10 | Time to a first useful answer. Fast is good; we also note what is checked within that time. |
Each tool gets 0–5 per criterion. The total is the weighted average, scaled to 100. Only tools whose main job is Cyprus legal research are scored; practice software, international platforms and general assistants are listed but not ranked, because they do a different job.
Why these weights
For legal research, what matters most is whether the answer rests on the right sources and whether you can check it. So coverage and grounding carry the most weight. Independence and open access come next because they affect confidentiality and who gets to use the law. Speed matters, but a fast answer that you have to re-check is not faster in the end. You can disagree: set your own weights.
Evidence rules
- Every fact links to a public source: the vendor's own site, terms, app store listing or a named press report.
- If a vendor does not publish something, we say so and score it neutral (3) where it can't be judged, never lower.
- We mark each profile as verified, reported or unverified, with the review date.
- We do not use automated tricks to read sites that refuse automated access; we note that instead.
Handling our own conflict of interest
- A short disclosure is in the footer of every page; the full statement is on the About page and on the Menas profile.
- Menas is scored on the same criteria, and its weaknesses (speed, small free allowance, features not yet live) are listed as prominently as anyone else's.
- Each competitor has a "Best for" label and its real strengths listed first.
- No paid placements, no affiliate links, no review stars or ratings markup.
- Any vendor can request a correction, and we publish the change date.
Updates
We review the index at least monthly and whenever a vendor launches or changes something material. The full dataset is published as open JSON (CC BY 4.0).