HomeEditorial policy

Editorial Policy

How we test data rooms, how we score them, and how this site makes money — written so you can hold us to it.

How we make money

Secure Data Rooms is operated by the team behind Papermark, an open-source data room platform reviewed on this site. When you sign up for Papermark after clicking a link here, we benefit directly. Links to other providers may or may not carry referral terms; either way, no provider can pay to change a score, a ranking position, or a verdict.

Papermark is our recommended pick for startups and lean deal teams. It earns the top spot in value-weighted rankings because pricing transparency and total cost are heavily weighted criteria in our rubric — a choice we defend openly, since we believe hidden pricing is the category's biggest buyer problem. Where other providers are better, we say so: our own pages recommend Datasite, Intralinks, and iDeals for large enterprise M&A and credit Ansarada for publishing its rates.

The scoring rubric

Every ranked list on this site uses the same weighted criteria. The weights are the editorial position; the scores under them are reproducible from the cited evidence.

CriterionWeightWhat we measure
Pricing transparency & total cost30%Published rate cards score higher than quote-only models. Total cost is modeled for a typical lean deal team (3 admins, ~50 reviewers, 2–5 GB, 6 months).
Core security controls25%Granular permissions, dynamic watermarking, NDA gating, audit trails, and access revocation — verified in the plan tier we quote, not the top tier.
Ease of setup & reviewer experience20%Time from signup to a working room, guest-side friction, and how fast a non-admin can find documents.
Deal workflow depth15%Q&A workflows, staged access, analytics, and reporting for live diligence processes.
Support & reliability10%Support channels and responsiveness, uptime posture, and certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001).

Testing and sourcing rules

  • Hands-on first. Where a trial exists, we build a real room, invite guests, and test the controls we list. Features we could not verify are attributed to vendor documentation.
  • Prices are cited or labeled. Published prices link to official pages. Quote-only vendors get reported ranges from multiple independent sources, always labeled as estimates.
  • Every review names weaknesses. Including Papermark's: it does not offer managed Q&A at enterprise scale, and our pages route those deals to competitors.
  • Third-party comparisons get real verdicts. An "iDeals vs Intralinks" page declares a winner between those two on the merits; Papermark appears only as a clearly marked sidebar where genuinely relevant.
  • Honest dates. "Last updated" changes only when the content materially changes.
  • Link policy. Outbound links to providers other than Papermark carry rel="nofollow"; we do not sell followed links.

Corrections

We correct factual errors quickly and update the affected page's date. Report issues via the Papermark GitHub or through papermark.com.