How We Rate

By Margot Keane · Updated April 2026

Every site on this project gets scored against the same six questions. Same criteria, same weighting, same method of checking. No fast-track for sites that pay affiliate commission, no penalty for sites that don't. The scoring framework is published here in full so you can see exactly how we got from "we spent three weeks looking at this" to a number on a card.

It's also here so you can disagree with us. If you think we've weighted representation too low, or we've given transparency too much room, the formula is right below. Run your own weighting. That's the point.

The six criteria

Criterion	Weight	What it measures
Ethical Production	25%	Performer compensation, contracts, payment model
Consent & Safety	20%	On-set consent process, safety protocols, advocacy
Performer Agency	15%	Creative control, scene selection, ownership of footage
Representation	15%	Body types, races, orientations, ages, disabilities on screen
Content Quality	15%	Direction, cinematography, writing, sound design
Transparency	10%	Named directors, public policies, verifiable claims

The formula

overall = (0.25 × production) + (0.20 × consent) + (0.15 × agency)
        + (0.15 × representation) + (0.15 × quality) + (0.10 × transparency)

Each criterion is scored 1.0–10.0 in half-point increments. The overall rating rounds to one decimal place.

The tiers

• 9.0–10.0 — Excellent. Best-in-class on most or all criteria.
• 7.5–8.9 — Good. Strong overall, with clear strengths that offset soft spots.
• 6.0–7.4 — Average. Meets the baseline on most criteria, lagging on one or two.
• Below 6.0 — Needs Improvement. Fails on multiple criteria; we say what and why.

We don't publish reviews of sites scoring under 5.0 unless there's a specific reason to (notable studio, frequently recommended by competitors, etc.). In those cases the review exists to document why the site doesn't make our recommended list.

Ethical Production — 25%

The biggest weight, because this is the question most affects the people actually in the scenes.

What we look for

• Compensation model. Flat rate per scene, revenue-share, hybrid. Revenue-share models score highest because performer earnings track the value their work creates over time.
• Published pay rates. Sites that publish rates (or allow performers to talk openly about them) score better than sites that keep this opaque.
• Working contracts. Clear, negotiated, understood by performers. Not buried in terms of service, not shifted mid-production.
• Use of performer labor. Is the studio shooting one scene and selling it across five different platforms? (Ethically grey. Call it out.)
• Pay disputes. Public record of performer complaints about non-payment or delayed payment weighs against.

What we check

Performer interviews on independent platforms (YouTube, podcasts, the studio's Instagram, X accounts). Industry news sources for pay disputes. Sites' own FAQ or "about" pages for compensation policy. When we can reach a performer directly, we do.

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Published rates, revenue-share, performers consistently describe the compensation as fair on independent platforms.
• 8.0 — Reasonable rates, flat payment model, no public complaints.
• 6.5 — Rates opaque, performers describe payment as adequate but not generous.
• 5.0 — Rates opaque, at least some performer complaints about payment.
• Below 5 — Documented pay disputes, off-platform work without compensation, or known unfair contracts.

Consent & Safety — 20%

Second-biggest weight because this is the area where the cost of failure is highest.

What we look for

• Pre-scene consent process. Documented, negotiated, signed — and ideally filmed. Kink.com has been doing recorded consent since the early 2010s. Other studios don't always follow suit.
• On-set advocates. Someone whose job is performer welfare, not production. More common on ethical kink sets than on mainstream sets.
• Right to stop. Publicly stated policy that any performer can halt the scene at any time without penalty.
• Health protocols. Current STI testing, prophylactics available and used, safe-word protocols for scenes involving impact or restraint.
• Post-scene check-in. Separate from the pre-scene consent — does the site check in with performers after the scene aired?

What we check

Performer interviews about on-set experience. Public statements from the studio about safety protocols. Industry advocacy groups (Adult Performer Advocacy Committee, Free Speech Coalition) for documented complaints. Published policies on site itself.

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Documented consent-filming process, on-set advocate, published right-to-stop policy, positive performer testimony across multiple independent sources.
• 8.0 — Published safety protocols, no documented incidents, performers generally positive.
• 6.5 — Protocols claimed but not detailed publicly.
• 5.0 — No public policy, or documented concerns in at least one performer account.
• Below 5 — Multiple documented safety or consent failures.

Performer Agency — 15%

Who decides what happens on camera.

What we look for

• Performers choose scene partners. Not assigned by casting.
• Performers contribute to scene concept. Even partially — a theme, a scenario, a scene they've been wanting to shoot.
• Footage ownership or usage rights. Does the performer keep any claim to their own image? Some sites offer performers the right to pull or repurpose their scenes; most don't.
• Co-direction credits. If the performer is substantially shaping the scene, do they get directing credit (and the pay that comes with it)?
• Performer-owned platforms. Sites run or co-run by performers (Vex Ashley at Four Chambers, Courtney Trouble at Indie Porn Revolution) almost by definition score high here.

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Performer-owned platform, co-direction standard, footage rights negotiated.
• 8.0 — Performers pick partners, contribute concepts, but don't own footage.
• 6.5 — Standard industry model — performers show up, perform, leave.
• 5.0 — Scripts tightly controlled, performers have little input on what they do.
• Below 5 — Performers explicitly describe feeling like interchangeable labor.

Representation — 15%

Who actually appears on camera, and whether the range extends beyond the narrow ideal that mainstream adult film has defaulted to for forty years.

What we look for

• Body types. Thin, fat, muscular, soft, tall, short, in-between. Regular presence of each, not tokenized once-a-year.
• Race. Performers of color in the main roster, not only in categorized or fetishized scenes.
• Age. Performers over 35, 45, 55 — without the "milf" or "mature" framing that flattens adult sexuality into fetish.
• Orientation. Queer performers performing queer scenes, not solely heterosexual-labeled content.
• Gender. Trans and non-binary performers treated as performers, not as category niches.
• Disability. Rarer across the industry, but present on some ethical platforms.

This is the criterion where we push hardest. Diversity on paper is cheap; diversity on the cast list is what counts.

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Wide range across all dimensions in the main catalog, not siloed into "niche" subcategories.
• 8.0 — Strong on most dimensions, weaker on one or two (common failure: excellent body diversity, weak on disability).
• 6.5 — Representation present but predictable (e.g., mostly white, mostly 25–35).
• 5.0 — Narrow range; claims diversity in marketing but the cast list doesn't back it up.
• Below 5 — Mainstream-tier homogeneity.

Content Quality — 15%

Whether the site's direction, storytelling, and production match its ethics.

What we look for

• Direction. Intentional shots, considered pacing, scene structure that doesn't feel template-driven.
• Cinematography. Lighting, framing, sound design. Some ethical sites shoot on $500 budgets; some on $50,000. Both can score well. What we penalize is visibly lazy production.
• Writing. For sites with narrative content, the writing matters. A site with 200 scenes shot the same way scores worse than a site with 50 scenes that each feel distinct.
• Sound. Often the first thing that gives away lazy production. Usable audio, not bad mics at awkward distances.
• Consistency. One incredible film and forty forgettable ones gets penalized against a catalog that's reliably watchable.

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Festival-quality direction, cinematography matching the intent of the work.
• 8.0 — Competent across catalog, one or two standout pieces.
• 6.5 — Functional, nothing memorable either way.
• 5.0 — Visible production shortcuts, indifferent direction.
• Below 5 — Recycled scenes or clearly rushed work.

Transparency — 10%

Smallest weight because it's foundational rather than decisive — most sites that score well on the others also score well here, and it mostly works as a tiebreaker.

What we look for

• Named director or founder. Can you find out who's running this? Ideally without clicking through three pages.
• Published compensation and consent policies. Easy to locate, written clearly, not hidden inside a legal document.
• Public points of contact. Director's social, studio email, named producers. A press page is a good sign.
• Claims that match reality. "We pay performers fairly" should line up with what performers actually say on their own accounts.
• Ownership disclosure. Who owns the site — a founder, a studio, a holding company? If it's a holding company, who's the parent?

Score anchors

• 9.5+ — Named founder, public policies, performer testimonials corroborate the site's claims.
• 8.0 — Named leadership, most policies published.
• 6.5 — Some information findable, some buried.
• 5.0 — Opaque ownership, marketing claims without evidence.
• Below 5 — Shell-company structure, claims don't match available evidence.

Our process

For each review:

1. Read everything the site publishes about itself — About page, FAQ, press section, blog, terms of service.
2. Sign up for a paid subscription — we pay for what we review, which means we see what an actual paying user sees, not a reviewer-comped preview.
3. Watch a representative sample — not just the hero content on the homepage. At least 10 scenes across the site's catalog.
4. Research the people behind the site — LinkedIn, Instagram, X, Pornfilmfestival Berlin awards, Feminist Porn Awards, interviews in trade press.
5. Check performer voices — Twitter / Instagram / podcasts / any independent account where performers talk about their experience.
6. Flag anything we can't verify — if we're uncertain, the review says so, and the score reflects the uncertainty.
7. Write the review — score the six criteria, draft the narrative, check every factual claim.
8. Send updates when things change — pricing shifts, ownership changes, performer reports. Reviews carry a "last verified" date.

What we don't do

• We don't take payment for placement. Affiliate commissions on sites we review — yes, and we disclose them. Paid placements, sponsorships, or "pay for a review" arrangements — no, and we never have.
• We don't pull reviews because a site complains. We correct genuine errors. We don't pull unflattering content to keep an affiliate relationship alive.
• We don't review sites we can't verify. If the site won't let us sign up, won't publish basic information, or operates under an opaque shell structure we can't untangle, we don't review it. An unreviewed site isn't an endorsement.
• We don't treat ethical claims as fact. Every "ethical porn" claim on a site is marketing until it's verified. Our job is the verification.

A note on methodology debt

The framework above is version 2 of the scoring system. The first version, used in the early research for this project, over-weighted production quality and under-weighted representation. We adjusted after realizing we were giving higher scores to well-shot sites with narrow rosters than to scrappier sites with more diverse casts. The current weights reflect that correction.

Versions of the scoring framework will keep evolving. When we change the weighting, we'll update existing reviews and note the change here.

The six-criteria structure draws on the University of Sydney 2023 research led by Zahra Zsuzsanna Stardust, which synthesized input from performers, producers, and advocates on what "ethical porn" should mean in practice. We've extended the Sydney framework by adding explicit weighting and scoring rubrics.

Independence

EthicalBestPorn is an independent editorial project. No publishing group owns it. No studio has editorial influence. Affiliate commissions — clearly disclosed on every review page where they apply — help cover subscription costs, hosting, and research time. They don't shape scores.

If you have questions about how we rated a specific site, or you work at one of the sites we've reviewed and want to correct something factually wrong, get in touch.

---

See the full ranked list or start with the introduction to ethical porn.