We publish a letter grade on income opportunities, and we show our work.
Opportunity Grade reviews multi-level marketing companies, affiliate programs and “business-in-a-box” offers. 107 are published. The watchlist runs to two hundred: ranks 1–100 are complete and 101–200 are ranked and queued. Every one is scored on the same nine weighted dimensions, tested against the same six legal questions, and published with its sources and with a list of the things we could not verify.
We are not a scam list. Some of the companies with the worst reputations online score better here than companies with the best marketing. The letter is the outcome of arithmetic, not of an opinion about the industry.
Who writes this
Three roles, kept separate on purpose.
Author - Claude AI
Every report on this site is researched and written by Claude, the AI assistant built by Anthropic. That is not a disclaimer buried in the terms; it is the first thing on this page, because a reader deciding whether to trust a grade is entitled to know what produced it.
What that means in practice. For each company, Claude works from primary documents - the official compensation plan, the policies and procedures, the terms of service, the income disclosure statement where one exists, corporate filings, court dockets, regulator correspondence and self-regulatory decisions. Every material fact on a report page carries a source. Anything that could not be stood up against a primary document is named in that report’s “unable to verify” list rather than quietly dropped or softened into a hedge.
What it does not mean. Nothing here is generated from a general impression of a company, or from what other reviewers have said about it. Where a report disagrees with the consensus - and it often does, in both directions - the disagreement is traceable to a document you can open yourself.
Editorial review - Rob Fore
Every report is reviewed before publication by Rob Fore.
He checks that each source link resolves and supports the sentence it is attached to; that every figure matches the document it was taken from; and, most importantly, that every allegation carries its correct stage-label. An investigation is not a finding. A warning letter is not an enforcement action. A referral to a regulator is not an action by that regulator. A filed class action is not a verdict, and a putative class is not a certified one. Collapsing those distinctions is the most common failure in this genre of writing, and it is what the editorial pass exists to catch.
Rob Fore has marketed online since 1996 and is the author of Online MLM Marketing: How to Get 100+ Free MLM Leads Per Day (2014). He is CEO of Listech Inc. He has worked inside this industry for close to three decades, which is the reason he can tell a real plan document from a marketing page - and also the reason the conflicts section below exists.
Contact the editor
Editorial questions, right of reply, anything that is not a factual correction.
Write to the editorPublisher - Listech Inc
Opportunity Grade is published by Listech Inc, a Nevada corporation. Listech owns this site, pays for it, and is accountable for what appears on it. Correspondence, including legal correspondence, reaches a person at corrections@opportunitygrade.com.
What the editor cannot do
The editor cannot change a grade.
A report’s letter is not assigned. It is computed. Each company is scored 0–10 on nine dimensions, each dimension carries a fixed published weight, and the score is their weighted composite.
| Dimension | Weight | The question it asks |
|---|---|---|
| Comp structure & Koscot | 20% | Does the plan pay for recruitment or for sales to real customers? |
| Securities exposure | 15% | Any passive return on capital? Howey, staking, tokens, withdrawal friction. |
| Ownership & track record | 15% | Who runs it, what did they run before, and what happened to it. |
| Product reality & demand | 12% | Would a rational buyer purchase this if no income offer existed? |
| Participant economics | 10% | Real cost in, realistic money out, and whether they publish the numbers. |
| Price-to-value | 8% | What the same capability costs on the open market. |
| Payout sustainability | 8% | Can the company fund the plan out of margin, or only out of inflow? |
| Marketing conduct | 7% | Income claims, regulator run-ins, hype, deadline stacking. |
| Operator terms & exit | 5% | Who owns the customer, what you forfeit, how hard it is to leave. |
The letter follows from the number on a fixed band table - 9.5 and above is A+, 7.0 to 7.5 is B−, 4.0 to 5.0 is D, below 3.0 is F - with no discretion at the boundary. The full rubric, worked examples and the hard-cap rules are on the methodology page.
And this is enforced, not merely intended. The site’s build script recomputes the weighted composite for every published report on every build, and refuses to produce a page whose published score differs from its own arithmetic by more than 0.06. An editor who wanted to lift a company by half a grade would have to change the underlying dimension scores, which means changing the reasoning paragraph attached to each one, which is published on the page next to it. There is nowhere to put a thumb.
The one discretionary instrument on the site is a hard cap, and it can only ever move a grade down. A cap exists because two of the nine dimensions - marketing conduct at 7% and operator terms at 5% - are weighted too lightly to reflect a company whose conduct in those areas is genuinely severe. Where a cap binds, the report names exactly what the cap rests on, and states plainly what it does not rest on. A cap has never been used to raise a grade, and by construction it cannot be.
Interests, and how we handle them
A review site that says nothing about its own commercial position is asking to be taken on faith. We would rather be checkable.
Rob Fore holds affiliate positions in companies that are graded on this site. As of September 2026, those are:
| Position held | Graded here? | The grade we published |
|---|---|---|
| LiveGood | Yes | D 4.3 / 10 |
| SendOutCards | Yes | C- 6.4 / 10 |
| Home Business Academy | Yes | B- 7.0 / 10 |
| My Lead Gen Secret | Yes | D 4.8 / 10 |
Former positions, all ended before this page was published: iCoinPro, which this site grades F 2.4 / 10, Nowsite, which this site grades C+ 6.6 / 10, and USANA.
USANA was previously disclosed here as a company that is not graded and not on our watchlist. That changed on 1 August 2026. The August 2026 sweep scored it at 63.0 on the same model, which places it at rank 105 on the watchlist - above the score that closed the original hundred. It is on the watchlist because the arithmetic put it there, and the pre-commitment on this page applies to it in full: it will be graded on schedule and published at whatever the rubric produces, exactly as My Lead Gen Secret was at rank 91 - that report is now published and grades D.
The promise this page made about My Lead Gen Secret has now been kept
This page used to carry a pre-commitment: My Lead Gen Secret sat at rank 91, was not yet graded, and would be graded on the same nine dimensions as everything else and published at whatever the arithmetic produced - not quietly skipped, moved down the queue, or held back. It said that if the report ever failed to appear, that paragraph was the one to hold us to.
The report is published, and it grades D at 4.8 / 10. It is the D in the table above, and the editor holds a position in it - which is exactly the case the pre-commitment existed to cover. A D on a company you are paid to promote is what keeping that promise looks like.
Three reports were published outside the ranking - and we have an interest in all three
SendOutCards, iCoinPro and Nowsite were published off the top-100 ranking, at readers’ requests. The editor holds a position in one of the three and formerly held positions in the other two. We are pointing that out rather than waiting for someone else to. Each was researched, scored and published exactly like every other report on this site, and they grade C-, F and C+ respectively. Publishing a report on a company you promote is not a favor to it.
Read the table again, because it is the point. Six reports on this site cover companies the editor holds or has held a position in. They grade D, C-, B-, D, F, C+. The best of them is B- - Home Business Academy, at 7.0 / 10, which is the editor’s largest position and still sits below the top of this site’s scale. Not one is an A. If editorial review were a route to a better grade, these are the six reports where you would expect to find one, and it is not there. Most review sites can only assert that they are not captured. This one can show you the receipts, and the receipts are unflattering to the editor.
The specific commitments
No company has paid for a grade
Not for a review, not for a place in the queue. There is no rate card, and no arrangement under which payment, advertising or access changes a score, the order of publication, or whether a report is published at all.
No report carries an affiliate link
Not to a graded company, not to a replacement product, not to anything. Where a report names a cheaper alternative, that is a plain link and we earn nothing from it.
Positions are disclosed on the report itself
Reports on companies the editor holds or has held a position in carry a disclosure above the summary, naming the position, so a reader does not have to come here to find out.
Scores are set by the method, not the editor
Under the build constraint described above. And we do not remove a report because a company objects to its conclusion - we correct one when the underlying facts turn out to be wrong.
We do not grade our own businesses
A company we have a stake in is a company we cannot grade at arm’s length, so we do not pretend otherwise. No business owned by the publisher or the editor will appear on this site with a letter next to it.
Your email address is not a marketing list
We will never use your email address to promote an income opportunity of any kind. Not a company rated here, not a company on our watchlist, not anything else. We do not sell, rent or share the list.
No company we grade holds your address
Watches and requests are stored in our own database on Cloudflare, and the confirmation email goes out through Resend. Neither is a company this site grades. We deliberately did not use systeme.io, which powers the opt-in on the editor’s own site and is graded B here: a company we grade should not have custody of the list of people reading our grades, and no disclosure would repair that. Confirmation is double opt-in, unsubscribing deletes every watch and request attached to your address, and nothing is recorded against it until you click the link we send.
How the site is funded. Costs are borne by Listech Inc. The site does not sell advertising, does not take payment from any company it grades, and generates no revenue from the grades themselves.
What this site is not
It is not legal, financial, tax or investment advice. It is journalism and analysis. If you are about to commit money you cannot afford to lose, talk to someone licensed in your jurisdiction.
It is not an allegation of illegality. Legality is assessed and stated separately from the letter grade, and a low grade is a statement about a participant’s likely economics, not a claim that a company has broken a law. Where a regulator, a court or a self-regulatory body has actually acted, we say exactly what happened, when, and at what stage. Where none has, we say that too - and the absence is often the most useful sentence on the page.
It is not exhaustive, and it is not permanent. Compensation plans change, companies restructure, and regulatory files develop. Every report carries the date it was reviewed. If a report is out of date, tell us and it moves up the queue.
It is not a substitute for reading the plan document yourself. Every report links to the primary sources. We would rather you checked us.
Corrections
corrections@opportunitygrade.com
If something on this site is wrong, we want to know, and we would rather hear it from the company than from a reader.
Point at the specific sentence and send the document that contradicts it - a plan document, a filing, an income disclosure, a policy page, a court record. We will check it against the primary source. If we are wrong we will correct the page, note on the report that it was corrected and when, and re-run the score if the correction touches a dimension. A grade moves if the evidence moves it.
What we do not require: a takedown demand, a legal threat, an NDA, or a lawyer. What we will not do: remove a report because its conclusion is unwelcome, or accept a correction that is not evidenced.
Every graded company has a standing right of reply. Send a response and we will publish it alongside the report, unedited except for length and defamatory content.
That address is monitored by a person. It is kept off our bulk-mail subdomain, so the correction route printed on 107 adversarial reports cannot be spoofed and cannot be collateral damage from a newsletter send.
Contact
| Factual corrections, right of reply, legal | corrections@opportunitygrade.com |
| The editor - editorial questions, anything else | editor@opportunitygrade.com |
| Publisher | Listech Inc, a Nevada corporation |