Transparency

The CQ Score
Methodology

Every data and compare page on Calquify carries a CQ Score — a single number that tells you how much to trust the sources behind it. Here is exactly how it works.

📋 CQ Score is assigned per page based on source quality, citation depth, methodology transparency, freshness and cross-verification. Scores may include manual review and context-specific editorial adjustments.
85
CQ Score
95–100 Official primary
90–94 Multiple verified
80–89 Strong institutional
70–79 Mixed sources
60–69 Secondary
<60 Limited
01 — Overview

What is a CQ Score?

CQ stands for Calquify Quality. It is a score from 0 to 100 assigned to every page on this platform, representing the overall quality and trustworthiness of the data presented on that page.

The score reflects five dimensions: the type and authority of sources used, how many independent sources are cited, whether the methodology is documented, how recent the data is, and whether figures have been cross-verified against multiple references.

The CQ Score is not a comment on whether the underlying data is correct — it is a signal about how well-sourced, transparent and current the information is. A score of 92 means you are looking at data drawn from official institutional primary sources with full methodology documentation. A score of 65 means the data is useful but less thoroughly sourced.

Important: CQ Scores are assigned editorially per page. The simulator in Section 05 is educational — it shows how source choices affect quality, but actual scores on published pages may reflect additional context, manual review and editorial judgement not captured by any formula alone.
02 — Score Bands

What each band means

CQ Scores are grouped into six bands. When you see the score on a page sidebar, the active band is highlighted so you know at a glance where it sits.

95–100
Highest
Official primary sources
Data drawn exclusively from official government statistical agencies, central banks or intergovernmental bodies. Full methodology documented. Data current within 12 months.
e.g. Eurostat, ECB, CBS Netherlands, Belastingdienst, ONS UK, Bundesbank
Verified
90–94
Very high
Multiple verified primary sources
Two or more independent official primary sources corroborating the same figures. Cross-referenced and methodology-documented. High confidence.
e.g. OECD + national statistics agency + central bank
Verified
80–89
High
Strong institutional sources
Official or institutional sources with documented methodology. May include one secondary reference. Data current. Strong confidence for professional use.
e.g. IMF, World Bank, national tax authority, OECD working paper
Strong
70–79
Good
Mixed primary and secondary sources
Combination of primary and reputable secondary sources. Methodology partially documented. Data within 24 months. Good for general reference.
e.g. government source + industry report + academic paper
Good
60–69
Indicative
Mostly secondary sources
Primarily secondary or aggregated sources. Limited methodology documentation. Use with awareness of source chain.
e.g. Numbeo, industry associations, research reports without primary backing
Indicative
<60
Limited
Limited source reliability
Single source, estimated figures or data older than 36 months. Use as indicative only. Calquify flags these pages clearly.
e.g. single news article, estimated projection, legacy data older than 3 years
Limited
03 — Scoring Factors

The five dimensions of data quality

Every CQ Score reflects five distinct quality dimensions. No single factor determines the score — all five are considered together. Hover each card to explore.

🏛️
Source Authority
Highest weight · up to 30 pts
The institutional standing of the sources cited. Official government statistical agencies, central banks and intergovernmental bodies score highest. Aggregators and secondary sources score lower regardless of how widely they are cited.
📚
Citation Depth
High weight · up to 20 pts
The number of independent sources corroborating key figures. A single source scores lower than multiple independent references reaching the same conclusion. This dimension specifically rewards redundancy.
🔬
Methodology Transparency
High weight · up to 20 pts
Whether the data collection and calculation methodology is documented. Pages with full methodology explanations and documented formulas score higher than those citing figures without context on how they were derived.
📅
Data Freshness
Medium weight · up to 15 pts
How recent the underlying data is. Data within 12 months of publication scores highest. Data older than 36 months is flagged and reduces the score significantly. Each page shows its last reviewed date.
✅
Cross-Verification
Medium weight · up to 15 pts
Whether figures have been independently verified against a second source. Pages where key statistics are confirmed by an independent reference score higher. This is the most labour-intensive dimension to satisfy.
04 — Source Types

How different source types are weighted

Not all sources are equal. The cards below show how different source categories contribute to the source authority dimension of the CQ Score.

National statistical agency
Tier 1 · Primary
CBS, Destatis, INSEE, ONS, Eurostat, Statistics Sweden
Central bank
Tier 1 · Primary
ECB, Nederlandsche Bank, Bundesbank, Bank of England, Riksbank
Government tax authority
Tier 1 · Primary
Belastingdienst, HMRC, Agencia Tributaria, Agenzia Entrate, IRS
Intergovernmental body
Tier 2 · Institutional
OECD, IMF, World Bank, ILO, UN Statistics Division
Academic peer-reviewed
Tier 2 · Institutional
Published journal research, university working papers, ECB working papers
Professional services research
Tier 3 · Secondary
KPMG, PwC, Deloitte, Mercer tax guides and salary surveys
Aggregated cost-of-living index
Tier 3 · Secondary
Numbeo, EIU Cost of Living, Mercer CoL Survey, NomadList
Industry association
Tier 4 · Indicative
GSMA, EFAMA, InsuranceEurope, trade body publications
News media and press
Tier 4 · Indicative
FT, Reuters, Bloomberg, NRC Handelsblad, Le Monde
05 — Simulator

Estimate how source choices affect CQ Score

Use the simulator to understand how different source combinations affect data quality. This is educational — actual page CQ Scores may also include manual review and context-specific adjustments.

CQ Score Estimator
Select one option per dimension to estimate a page CQ Score
📊 Max 100 pts
🏛️ Source Authority Max 30 pts
📚 Citation Depth Max 20 pts
🔬 Methodology Max 20 pts
📅 Data Freshness Max 15 pts
✅ Cross-Verification Max 15 pts
—
Select options to estimate
This simulator is educational. Actual page CQ Scores may include manual review and editorial context adjustments.
Score breakdown
🏛️ Authority—
📚 Citations—
🔬 Methodology—
📅 Freshness—
✅ Cross-verify—
06 — FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Yes. CQ Score measures source quality and methodology — not factual accuracy. A page citing five official government sources with full methodology documentation would score 95+, but if one of those official sources published incorrect data, the page would reflect that error. CQ Score tells you how well we sourced the data, not whether the underlying data is correct. We cross-verify specifically to reduce this risk, but no scoring system eliminates it entirely.
CQ Scores are reviewed whenever a page is updated — either when source data changes, when new sources are added, or during scheduled annual reviews. The freshness dimension of the score will decline as data ages toward and past the 24-month mark, so scores are not static. Each page shows its last reviewed date in the data freshness strip.
Because the CQ Score reflects the full picture for each page, not just the presence of a specific institution. A page that cites Eurostat alone and provides no methodology explanation scores lower than a page that cites Eurostat, corroborates with CBS Netherlands and documents the calculation fully. The institution matters, but so do citation depth, methodology documentation, freshness and cross-verification.
The simulator is educational and illustrative. Actual CQ Scores are assigned editorially per page and may reflect factors the simulator does not capture — for example, whether the specific source publication cited is the primary or derived dataset, whether there are known data revision issues with a particular statistical series, or Calquify editorial judgement about data quality in a specific context. The simulator gives a reasonable approximation, but page scores are not calculated by formula alone.
Yes. If you believe a page's CQ Score does not accurately reflect its source quality — either too high or too low — you can contact Calquify via the site contact page. Please include the page URL, the specific source or methodology concern, and any alternative sources you believe should be considered. We review all substantive source quality submissions.