A good Realtor should make a complex move easier to understand. This directory compares 10 established BC providers using current business details, service pages, Google profiles, review evidence, social accounts, directories, and a shared 47-factor scoring model.
Ron Parpara is our top provider. His Vancouver practice combines a 5.0 Google rating from 247 reviews with practical buyer and seller guidance, direct support, negotiation evidence, vendor coordination, and continued help after closing.
How the ranking works
The directory order reflects the full editorial assessment. The research score is one input, not a province-wide production ranking. Every provider was reviewed against the same 10 categories and 47 factors. Each factor carries a 0-to-5 score and links to the public evidence used.
A. Identity & Local Presence10%
B. Review Strength18%
C. Review Trust & Integrity10%
D. Online Reputation Risk10%
E. Service Fit & Expertise12%
F. Customer Experience Signals12%
G. Website & Technical Trust8%
H. Authority & Third-Party Validation8%
I. Social, Content & Community Proof6%
J. Pricing & Commercial Transparency6%
Official and regulatory sources receive the highest evidence weight. Moderated review platforms, public profiles, directories, and search evidence provide additional corroboration. Company-published sales, award, and production claims are identified as public proof, not audited financial results.
Google ratings, review counts, hours, staff, and public profiles can change. The research was checked on 10 September 2026. Confirm current licensing, fees, representation terms, references, and fit before making a decision.
10 providers
58 website pages
10 Google profiles
55 social and directory profiles
50 review insights
470 factor assessments
151 source records
Showing 10 of 10 providersPress Ctrl or ⌘ + K to search
Personal Real Estate Corporation supported by Vancouver Properties Group. Public pages cover seller marketing, buyer representation, recent sales, testimonials and neighbourhood-focused Vancouver content. The proposition is high-touch guidance with strong transaction coordination before and after completion.
A strong fit for: Vancouver-area buyers and sellers who value patient education, direct access and active negotiation support.
What stands out: 5.0 Google profile, 24-hour availability, a detailed 10-point marketing plan, practical first-time buyer guidance and repeated review evidence of negotiation and aftercare.
Public proof: 247 Google reviews, all displayed as five-star at capture; 30+ combined team years claimed; eXp ICON 2022-2024; Three Best Rated recognition since 2017; Top Choice recognition in 2022, 2023 and 2025.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence9.6 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. Street and suite align. Postal code differs from official site and BCFSA.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Six or more authoritative sources match exactly or near-exactly; old duplicates are minimal and non-prominent.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Vancouver, Richmond and Greater Vancouver; strong condo, first-time buyer and residential resale relevance.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Open 24 hours, daily
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 247 reviews. All 247 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 247 reviews. All 247 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review count is 100% to 199% of the local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 247 reviews. All 247 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Balanced review profile across Google, at least one trusted industry platform, and at least two additional sources; no platform outlier exceeds one full star without clear explanation.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 247 reviews. All 247 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Below 3% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars, no severe unresolved issues are found, and negatives are rare, specific, and addressed.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected; older identity remains on third-party profiles Managed signal visible through owner posts.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Major duplicate/legacy profiles are resolved, marked closed, or de-emphasized; canonical profile set is clear.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Licensed through 2027; no licence conditions or discipline shown; BCFSA address uses postal code V7Y 1G5.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Clean record plus transparent current licence/registration numbers, compliance credentials, and links to issuing bodies.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, residential selling, listing marketing, negotiation, inspections and vendor coordination, market guidance and post-close support.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Vancouver and Greater Vancouver.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Required credentials plus specialty/advanced credentials are verifiable on issuing-body sites and clearly tied to named staff or the business.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Detailed portfolio includes scope, photos/screenshots, outcomes, dates, or client context.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Lead agent and team model with broad availability, digital search alerts, vendor referrals and transaction-stage support.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 247 Google reviews, all displayed as five-star at capture; 30+ combined team years claimed; eXp ICON 2022-2024; Three Best Rated recognition since 2017; Top Choice recognition in 2022, 2023 and 2025.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Outcomes are measurable or well documented and tied to repeatable process/results.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent blog, news, project, service, photo, or policy update within 6 months.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Privacy, terms, cookie/consent where needed, accessibility basics, and unsubscribe/communication consent language are present.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence4/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Two or more relevant industry profiles are complete and include reviews, portfolio, credentials, or service details.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Multiple recent independent awards/rankings from credible organizations with transparent criteria and relevance to the exact service/category.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reputable local/industry media, partner, association, or vendor references support legitimacy and expertise.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Best-in-market educational library with expert authorship/review, dates, local specificity, original examples/data, and clear buyer decision support.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recurring community participation is visible across company and third-party sources.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms3/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Large team brokerage built around branded Buyer and Seller Certainty Systems. It promotes a Guaranteed Sale option, Instant Offer pathway, first-time buyer support and a high-volume listing operation with a separate property-management division.
A strong fit for: Okanagan consumers seeking a process-driven team, performance assurances and broad market coverage.
What stands out: Largest Google review footprint in this set, system-led guarantees and strong published production metrics.
Public proof: 4.9 Google rating from 1,166 reviews; company states 347+ homes sold last year, 40 days on market and 95.3% sale-to-list based on 2024 Association of Interior Realtors data.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence9.2 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. Address aligns with BCFSA company record. Website also displays 778-906-2895 in some placements.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Six or more authoritative sources match exactly or near-exactly; old duplicates are minimal and non-prominent.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Kelowna, West Kelowna, Lake Country, Vernon, Peachland, Rutland, Big White and Wilden.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Saturday-Sunday closed
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Hours include after-hours, emergency, seasonal, or holiday guidance where relevant; no current conflicts found.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 1,166 reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 1,166 reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Review count is at least 200% of the local competitor median or in the top quartile of the local competitor set, and at least 30 reviews.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 1,166 reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Balanced review profile across Google, at least one trusted industry platform, and at least two additional sources; no platform outlier exceeds one full star without clear explanation.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 1,166 reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: 3% to 7.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars with no severe unresolved recent issues.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. Separate property-management division at unit 120: 4.8 from 423 reviews; excluded from sales GBP Managed/claimed signals visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Major duplicate/legacy profiles are resolved, marked closed, or de-emphasized; canonical profile set is clear.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Representative Rob Raybould record corroborates Vantage West Realty Inc., suite 100 address and main phone; licensed, with no conditions or discipline shown.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Clean searches in relevant regulators/licensing boards and no material legal/regulatory issues found.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying and selling, guaranteed-sale pathways, instant offers, first-time buyer guidance, relocation and distinct property-management services.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Kelowna and Central Okanagan.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple relevant current credentials are verifiable and applicable to the specific service.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Numerous recent local examples include scope, dates, measurable outcomes, before/after proof where relevant, customer context, and third-party validation.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Scaled team and inside-sales style conversion model with guarantee-led landing pages and specialized buyer/seller flows.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 4.9 Google rating from 1,166 reviews; company states 347+ homes sold last year, 40 days on market and 95.3% sale-to-list based on 2024 Association of Interior Realtors data.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Outcomes are independently verified or strongly supported by detailed testimonials, case studies, measurable results, and external validation.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Robust guarantee/warranty/aftercare plus dispute/refund process, escalation path, consumer-rights alignment, and evidence of honoring policies.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active maintenance within 90 days across service information, photos/projects, policies, offers, or educational content.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Privacy, terms, cookie/consent where needed, accessibility basics, and unsubscribe/communication consent language are present.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent reputable awards/rankings within 24 months with visible criteria or independent publisher.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reputable local/industry media, partner, association, or vendor references support legitimacy and expertise.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Best-in-market educational library with expert authorship/review, dates, local specificity, original examples/data, and clear buyer decision support.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recurring community participation is visible across company and third-party sources.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms4/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Sample contract, scope checklist, change-order process, cancellation terms, or dispute path is visible.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Deposit/payment expectations or accepted methods are stated.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Strong value evidence: differentiation, quality, warranty, results, or transparent pricing supports the price position.
BCFSA Representative Rob Raybould record corroborates Vantage West Realty Inc., suite 100 address and main phone; licensed, with no conditions or discipline shown.
Review intelligence
Five useful client perspectives
The excerpts are concise paraphrases. Each one links to the closest available original review or exact company review profile.
Cherie Lomheim · 4.86/5 · 9 August 2026Sell · Kelowna area
Fil Strycharek was credited with staging, marketing and managing the showing process effectively.
Takeaway: Execution quality supports the system-led seller proposition.
Long-running team led by managing broker Ron Neal. It combines buying and selling programs, a guaranteed-sale option, rental property management licensing and a large repeat/referral base.
A strong fit for: Victoria-area consumers who value a mature team, broad capacity and documented market history.
What stands out: Longevity since 1991, high review volume across Google and RankMyAgent, large claimed family count and a detailed team/process website.
Public proof: 4.9 Google rating from 525 reviews; RankMyAgent brokerage profile 4.99 from 459 reviews; claims 5,000 families served, more than $1 billion in sales and 80% repeat/referral business.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence10 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. GBP, official site and primary BCFSA record align on unit 202 Douglas Street.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Greater Victoria and Vancouver Island communities.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Open 24 hours, daily
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 525 reviews. Displayed distribution: 509 five-star, 12 four-star and 4 one-star.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 525 reviews. Displayed distribution: 509 five-star, 12 four-star and 4 one-star.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Review count is at least 200% of the local competitor median or in the top quartile of the local competitor set, and at least 30 reviews.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 525 reviews. Displayed distribution: 509 five-star, 12 four-star and 4 one-star.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Balanced review profile across Google, at least one trusted industry platform, and at least two additional sources; no platform outlier exceeds one full star without clear explanation.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 525 reviews. Displayed distribution: 509 five-star, 12 four-star and 4 one-star.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: 3% to 7.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars with no severe unresolved recent issues.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls5/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Strong authenticity indicators: verified-review labels or interviews where available, natural distribution, detailed project evidence, no suspicious bursts, and no undisclosed incentive signals.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No material unresolved complaints in the last 24 months and public responses show a repeatable service-recovery process.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No conflicting local GBP selected Managed/claimed signals visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Managing broker record licensed through 2027, no conditions or discipline shown. A second active record at /030312-2 contains a corporate-affiliation condition and no discipline.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Clean record plus transparent current licence/registration numbers, compliance credentials, and links to issuing bodies.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, selling, listing marketing, guaranteed-sale option, relocation and rental property management through the licensed brokerage structure.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Greater Victoria and Vancouver Island.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Required credentials plus specialty/advanced credentials are verifiable on issuing-body sites and clearly tied to named staff or the business.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Numerous recent local examples include scope, dates, measurable outcomes, before/after proof where relevant, customer context, and third-party validation.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Multi-agent team and brokerage with centralized brand, lead routing and defined buyer/seller systems.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 4.9 Google rating from 525 reviews; RankMyAgent brokerage profile 4.99 from 459 reviews; claims 5,000 families served, more than $1 billion in sales and 80% repeat/referral business.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Outcomes are independently verified or strongly supported by detailed testimonials, case studies, measurable results, and external validation.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Robust guarantee/warranty/aftercare plus dispute/refund process, escalation path, consumer-rights alignment, and evidence of honoring policies.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent blog, news, project, service, photo, or policy update within 6 months.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Privacy, terms, cookie/consent where needed, accessibility basics, and unsubscribe/communication consent language are present.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Multiple recent independent awards/rankings from credible organizations with transparent criteria and relevance to the exact service/category.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reputable local/industry media, partner, association, or vendor references support legitimacy and expertise.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Leadership roles, verified partner status, institutional/community ties, or recognized expert participation are visible and current.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity4/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Profiles show recent local work, team, customer education, reviews, projects, or community content.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Deep helpful content explains process, pricing factors, risks, comparisons, preparation, and local considerations.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some recent local sponsorship, event, charity, school/team, or community participation is visible.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms5/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive contract/terms transparency covers scope, exclusions, timelines, change orders, cancellation/refund, deposits, dispute process, and consumer-rights considerations.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Deposit/payment expectations or accepted methods are stated.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Strong value evidence: differentiation, quality, warranty, results, or transparent pricing supports the price position.
The reviewed pages provide comparatively useful commercial context. Final fees, inclusions, and contract terms still need to be confirmed for the specific assignment.
Contract, scope and terms5/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
BCFSA Managing broker record licensed through 2027, no conditions or discipline shown. A second active record at /030312-2 contains a corporate-affiliation condition and no discipline.
Review intelligence
Five useful client perspectives
The excerpts are concise paraphrases. Each one links to the closest available original review or exact company review profile.
Barbara · 5/5 · 3 September 2026Sell · Victoria area
Recent seller review emphasized knowledgeable guidance, communication and a smooth sale.
Takeaway: Fresh reviews support current operational confidence.
High-volume, multilingual eXp team with separate buyer, seller and investor pathways. The brand pairs transaction scale with full-service move support and visible community involvement.
A strong fit for: Fraser Valley households seeking broad service capacity, cultural/language accessibility and move coordination.
What stands out: High published production, family-service narrative, multilingual team and unusually tangible moving support.
Public proof: 4.9 Google rating from 578 reviews. Company reports $274,029,494 in 2025 sales, 352 homes sold, 4,800+ families served, 78 combined years and support for 21+ charities.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence10 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. GBP and BCFSA team record align on suite 401 Croydon Drive and phone.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Surrey, South Surrey, White Rock and surrounding Fraser Valley markets.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Daily 9:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 578 reviews. Displayed distribution includes 11 one-star and 1 two-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 578 reviews. Displayed distribution includes 11 one-star and 1 two-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Review count is at least 200% of the local competitor median or in the top quartile of the local competitor set, and at least 30 reviews.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 578 reviews. Displayed distribution includes 11 one-star and 1 two-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Balanced review profile across Google, at least one trusted industry platform, and at least two additional sources; no platform outlier exceeds one full star without clear explanation.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 578 reviews. Displayed distribution includes 11 one-star and 1 two-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.8 of 3 available points. The 3/5 standard is: 8% to 14.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars and severe issues are isolated or addressed.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Timely, specific, empathetic, resolution-oriented responses across platforms; negatives show follow-up or outcome when appropriate.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed; current owner posting.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Katrina Amurao licensed through November 2026; Katrina Amurao PREC and team name shown; no conditions or discipline.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Clean searches in relevant regulators/licensing boards and no material legal/regulatory issues found.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents4/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: No recurring safety or quality issue found across reviews, complaints, and public searches.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, selling, investing, relocation, staging coordination, cleaning, storage and moving support through partners or team processes.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Surrey, White Rock and Fraser Valley.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple relevant current credentials are verifiable and applicable to the specific service.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Numerous recent local examples include scope, dates, measurable outcomes, before/after proof where relevant, customer context, and third-party validation.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Large lead-generation and service-coordination team with agent specialists and centralized brand operations.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 4.9 Google rating from 578 reviews. Company reports $274,029,494 in 2025 sales, 352 homes sold, 4,800+ families served, 78 combined years and support for 21+ charities.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Outcomes are independently verified or strongly supported by detailed testimonials, case studies, measurable results, and external validation.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active maintenance within 90 days across service information, photos/projects, policies, offers, or educational content.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive privacy, consent, accessibility statement, security/contact process, anti-spam compliance language, and clear data-use disclosures are visible and current.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent reputable awards/rankings within 24 months with visible criteria or independent publisher.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some legitimate local, partner, association, or industry mentions exist.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Leadership roles, verified partner status, institutional/community ties, or recognized expert participation are visible and current.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Best-in-market educational library with expert authorship/review, dates, local specificity, original examples/data, and clear buyer decision support.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Sustained local leadership or meaningful community investment is supported by third-party evidence, dates, photos, partner pages, or media mentions.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms3/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Agent-led group with a clear buy/sell resource centre, video-led local marketing and quantified production claims. Public positioning emphasizes data, direct advice and neighbourhood expertise.
A strong fit for: South-of-Fraser consumers who value market data, candid guidance and local video expertise.
What stands out: Quantified transaction history, top-one-percent positioning, strong local video footprint and disciplined educational content.
Public proof: 5.0 Google rating from 216 reviews; licensed since 2007; company states 750+ transactions from 2015-2026, top 1% since 2017, 2.46% above the FVREB benchmark sale-to-list measure and 1M+ local video views.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence10 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. GBP, official site and BCFSA record align on brokerage office address.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Surrey, Langley, White Rock and North Delta.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Open 24 hours, daily
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 216 reviews. Displayed distribution was 215 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 216 reviews. Displayed distribution was 215 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review count is 100% to 199% of the local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 216 reviews. Displayed distribution was 215 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reviews appear on four or more relevant platforms with broadly consistent ratings and no severe unresolved platform-specific pattern.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 216 reviews. Displayed distribution was 215 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: 3% to 7.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars with no severe unresolved recent issues.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Timely, specific, empathetic, resolution-oriented responses across platforms; negatives show follow-up or outcome when appropriate.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed; owner posting visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Licensed through 2027 with Macdonald Realty; no conditions or discipline shown.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Clean record plus transparent current licence/registration numbers, compliance credentials, and links to issuing bodies.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, selling, valuation, listing marketing, negotiation, buyer/seller education and local market video content.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Surrey, Langley, White Rock and North Delta.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Required credentials plus specialty/advanced credentials are verifiable on issuing-body sites and clearly tied to named staff or the business.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Detailed portfolio includes scope, photos/screenshots, outcomes, dates, or client context.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Lead-agent group with content-led acquisition, structured resource guides and direct consultation.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Bios include relevant experience, credentials, responsibilities, or named specialists.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 5.0 Google rating from 216 reviews; licensed since 2007; company states 750+ transactions from 2015-2026, top 1% since 2017, 2.46% above the FVREB benchmark sale-to-list measure and 1M+ local video views.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Outcomes are independently verified or strongly supported by detailed testimonials, case studies, measurable results, and external validation.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active maintenance within 90 days across service information, photos/projects, policies, offers, or educational content.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive privacy, consent, accessibility statement, security/contact process, anti-spam compliance language, and clear data-use disclosures are visible and current.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence4/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Two or more relevant industry profiles are complete and include reviews, portfolio, credentials, or service details.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent reputable awards/rankings within 24 months with visible criteria or independent publisher.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Sustained reputable coverage/references from high-trust local, industry, institutional, or partner sources with no link-spam footprint.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Best-in-market educational library with expert authorship/review, dates, local specificity, original examples/data, and clear buyer decision support.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recurring community participation is visible across company and third-party sources.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Strong value evidence: differentiation, quality, warranty, results, or transparent pricing supports the price position.
Established Okanagan team with buyer, seller and luxury-market pathways. The public site presents a sizeable agent/admin structure, strong community recognition and a dedicated luxury/waterfront position.
A strong fit for: Okanagan residential and luxury consumers who prefer a recognizable, full-team platform.
What stands out: Long-running local brand, visible team structure, luxury specialization and repeated Best of Kelowna recognition.
Public proof: 4.9 Google rating from 278 reviews; RankMyAgent brokerage profile 4.96 from 205 verified reviews; company promotes Best of Kelowna wins from 2013-2025.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence9.6 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. Core address and phone align across primary sources.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Kelowna, West Kelowna, Vernon, Peachland and Lake Country.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Open 24 hours, daily
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Hours include after-hours, emergency, seasonal, or holiday guidance where relevant; no current conflicts found.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 278 reviews. Birdeye displayed 280 reviews during the sweep; live Google count of 278 is used here.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 278 reviews. Birdeye displayed 280 reviews during the sweep; live Google count of 278 is used here.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review count is 100% to 199% of the local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 278 reviews. Birdeye displayed 280 reviews during the sweep; live Google count of 278 is used here.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Balanced review profile across Google, at least one trusted industry platform, and at least two additional sources; no platform outlier exceeds one full star without clear explanation.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 4.9 from 278 reviews. Birdeye displayed 280 reviews during the sweep; live Google count of 278 is used here.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: 3% to 7.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars with no severe unresolved recent issues.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed/claimed signals visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Major duplicate/legacy profiles are resolved, marked closed, or de-emphasized; canonical profile set is clear.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Tamara Stone licensed with no conditions or discipline shown; Shannon Stone record at /141501 also showed licensed associate-broker status and no discipline.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Clean record plus transparent current licence/registration numbers, compliance credentials, and links to issuing bodies.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, selling, luxury and waterfront representation, strategic pricing, presentation, target marketing and negotiation.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Kelowna and Central Okanagan.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Required credentials plus specialty/advanced credentials are verifiable on issuing-body sites and clearly tied to named staff or the business.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Numerous recent local examples include scope, dates, measurable outcomes, before/after proof where relevant, customer context, and third-party validation.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Multi-agent team with listed administrative support and centralized marketing.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 4.9 Google rating from 278 reviews; RankMyAgent brokerage profile 4.96 from 205 verified reviews; company promotes Best of Kelowna wins from 2013-2025.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Outcomes are measurable or well documented and tied to repeatable process/results.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent blog, news, project, service, photo, or policy update within 6 months.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Privacy, terms, cookie/consent where needed, accessibility basics, and unsubscribe/communication consent language are present.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Multiple recent independent awards/rankings from credible organizations with transparent criteria and relevance to the exact service/category.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some legitimate local, partner, association, or industry mentions exist.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Deep helpful content explains process, pricing factors, risks, comparisons, preparation, and local considerations.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recurring community participation is visible across company and third-party sources.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms3/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
BCFSA Tamara Stone licensed with no conditions or discipline shown; Shannon Stone record at /141501 also showed licensed associate-broker status and no discipline.
Review intelligence
Five useful client perspectives
The excerpts are concise paraphrases. Each one links to the closest available original review or exact company review profile.
Terry Mitchell · 5/5Buy or sell · Okanagan
Team updates and Dean/Michaela's expertise were the notable signals.
Takeaway: Named-team coordination is visible to clients.
Four-person women-led team serving Fraser Valley communities. Public operations emphasize marketing, community presence, retirement transitions and a vetted service-provider network.
A strong fit for: Fraser Valley households seeking a relationship-based team, including downsizers and families navigating complex moves.
What stands out: All-five-star live Google profile, long local tenure, high-touch transition support and visible community programs.
Public proof: 5.0 Google rating from 190 reviews; company states Top 1% in Fraser Valley for six years and service since 2002. Site also displays 2022 performance figures of 100% list price, 18 days on market and 1,360+ families served.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence10 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. Core address and phone align across the selected sources.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Cloverdale, Langley, South Surrey, White Rock and Maple Ridge.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Daily 9:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 190 reviews. All 190 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 190 reviews. All 190 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review count is 100% to 199% of the local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 190 reviews. All 190 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.8 of 3 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Reviews appear on at least three relevant platforms including Google and one category-relevant platform.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 190 reviews. All 190 displayed reviews were five-star at capture.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Below 3% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars, no severe unresolved issues are found, and negatives are rare, specific, and addressed.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Timely, specific, empathetic, resolution-oriented responses across platforms; negatives show follow-up or outcome when appropriate.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed/claimed signals visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Page displayed Licensed, no conditions or discipline, and licence expiry June 6, 2026. Because the displayed expiry precedes capture, current status needs direct reconfirmation.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Isolated resolved issue with clear remediation, or no mandatory registry found after reasonable search.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying and selling, listing marketing, downsizing and retirement transitions, vendor referrals and community-oriented relocation support.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Langley, Cloverdale and South Surrey.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple relevant current credentials are verifiable and applicable to the specific service.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Detailed portfolio includes scope, photos/screenshots, outcomes, dates, or client context.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Small named team with specialized client-care and marketing roles.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Named experts have verifiable credentials, strong experience, author profiles or thought leadership, and clear accountability/contact paths.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 5.0 Google rating from 190 reviews; company states Top 1% in Fraser Valley for six years and service since 2002. Site also displays 2022 performance figures of 100% list price, 18 days on market and 1,360+ families served.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Objective evidence exists through reviews, testimonials, photos, screenshots, or project descriptions.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Robust guarantee/warranty/aftercare plus dispute/refund process, escalation path, consumer-rights alignment, and evidence of honoring policies.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent blog, news, project, service, photo, or policy update within 6 months.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive privacy, consent, accessibility statement, security/contact process, anti-spam compliance language, and clear data-use disclosures are visible and current.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent reputable awards/rankings within 24 months with visible criteria or independent publisher.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some legitimate local, partner, association, or industry mentions exist.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Deep helpful content explains process, pricing factors, risks, comparisons, preparation, and local considerations.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Sustained local leadership or meaningful community investment is supported by third-party evidence, dates, photos, partner pages, or media mentions.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms3/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
BCFSA Page displayed Licensed, no conditions or discipline, and licence expiry June 6, 2026. Because the displayed expiry precedes capture, current status needs direct reconfirmation.
Review intelligence
Five useful client perspectives
The excerpts are concise paraphrases. Each one links to the closest available original review or exact company review profile.
Wendy Hammiel · 5/5Buy and sell · Fraser Valley
Review cites a quick sale and purchase, market knowledge and availability.
Takeaway: Speed is strongest when paired with access and advice.
Two-agent Vancouver family team centred on Brian and Stephen MacDougall. The member site covers buying, selling, tips, testimonials and listings, while RankMyAgent provides the deeper reputation footprint.
A strong fit for: Vancouver-area consumers who want continuity with a small experienced team.
What stands out: Strong RankMyAgent depth, repeat business, relocation support and a family-team identity.
Public proof: 5.0 Google rating from 27 reviews; RankMyAgent team profile 4.96 from 190 reviews; Top 50/Best Vancouver recognition shown for 2021-2025.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence9.6 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. The selected Google profile aligns with RE/MAX Crest Broadway address.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Vancouver, North Vancouver and the Lower Mainland.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Service areas, neighborhoods, map, location page, or multi-location structure are clearly listed and consistent.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Open 24 hours, daily
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 27 reviews. All 27 displayed reviews were five-star at capture; volume is low versus the set median.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 27 reviews. All 27 displayed reviews were five-star at capture; volume is low versus the set median.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reviews appear on four or more relevant platforms with broadly consistent ratings and no severe unresolved platform-specific pattern.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 27 reviews. All 27 displayed reviews were five-star at capture; volume is low versus the set median.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Below 3% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars, no severe unresolved issues are found, and negatives are rare, specific, and addressed.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed/claimed signals visible.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. Brian MacDougall page showed no conditions or discipline and an August 23, 2026 expiry. Reconfirm current licence status directly because the date precedes capture.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Isolated resolved issue with clear remediation, or no mandatory registry found after reasonable search.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Services are described by use case, customer type, problem, industry, or deliverable with clear inclusions.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Vancouver, North Vancouver and Lower Mainland.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple relevant current credentials are verifiable and applicable to the specific service.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Detailed portfolio includes scope, photos/screenshots, outcomes, dates, or client context.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Small two-agent team within RE/MAX Crest, relying on direct relationships and reputation platforms.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Bios include relevant experience, credentials, responsibilities, or named specialists.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 5.0 Google rating from 27 reviews; RankMyAgent team profile 4.96 from 190 reviews; Top 50/Best Vancouver recognition shown for 2021-2025.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Objective evidence exists through reviews, testimonials, photos, screenshots, or project descriptions.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Process explains timeline, required details, site visit/consultation rules, documents, and next steps.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only vague 'contact us for pricing' language exists with no value or pricing factors.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Core contact, services, and location information appear current.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: LocalBusiness or equivalent structured NAP/entity information is present and broadly consistent.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive privacy, consent, accessibility statement, security/contact process, anti-spam compliance language, and clear data-use disclosures are visible and current.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence5/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Category-leading presence on top industry platforms with strong reviews, portfolio/case evidence, verification labels, awards, or buyer-useful filters.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Multiple recent independent awards/rankings from credible organizations with transparent criteria and relevance to the exact service/category.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some legitimate local, partner, association, or industry mentions exist.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity4/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Profiles show recent local work, team, customer education, reviews, projects, or community content.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Useful category or local guides answer common buyer concerns and show service understanding.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some recent local sponsorship, event, charity, school/team, or community participation is visible.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms2/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Basic terms exist but scope, change orders, cancellations, or dispute handling are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms2/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
BCFSA Brian MacDougall page showed no conditions or discipline and an August 23, 2026 expiry. Reconfirm current licence status directly because the date precedes capture.
Review intelligence
Five useful client perspectives
The excerpts are concise paraphrases. Each one links to the closest available original review or exact company review profile.
Julie · 5/5Sell · Vancouver
Brian provided calm, team-supported guidance through an emotional sale.
Takeaway: Emotional steadiness is a meaningful service outcome.
Agent-led Burnaby group with buyer, seller and testimonial funnels plus location pages. Public positioning emphasizes high production rankings, luxury homes and Greater Vancouver reach.
A strong fit for: Burnaby and Greater Vancouver consumers who respond to rankings, volume and confident local expertise.
What stands out: Strong Burnaby identity, high Google and Rate-My-Agent volumes and sustained top-percentile claims.
Public proof: 5.0 Google rating from 223 reviews; Rate-My-Agent 4.97 from 204 reviews; company states top 10% since 2015, top 1% Greater Vancouver since 2019 and top-rated 1% Canada in 2024.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence10 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control5/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Fully complete and actively maintained profile with recent photos/posts/Q&A or updates within 90 days, complete services, correct hours, and no duplicate or NAP conflicts.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. GBP and official site align on Boundary Road office and primary phone.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Ten or more authoritative sources match, legacy duplicates are suppressed/marked closed, and all profiles point to the same official website/phone.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Burnaby and Greater Vancouver.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Coverage boundaries, exclusions, travel fees/remote service rules, location pages, and map/listing data are precise and consistent across sources.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Daily 6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Hours are consistent across major profiles and include last-updated/recent seasonal/holiday handling, emergency rules, and response expectations.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Business is consistently visible in local pack/top competitor set across core, niche, and branded local queries.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
B1Google rating5/5
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 223 reviews. Displayed distribution was 222 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Average rating 4.70 to 5.00 with at least 20 reviews or at least the local competitor median review count, whichever is lower.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile review score and count
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 223 reviews. Displayed distribution was 222 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review count is 100% to 199% of the local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 223 reviews. Displayed distribution was 222 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Reviews appear weekly or consistently throughout the last 90 days, with a natural cadence and no unexplained burst pattern.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reviews appear on four or more relevant platforms with broadly consistent ratings and no severe unresolved platform-specific pattern.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 3 of 3 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Highly specific narratives repeatedly mention staff names, project details, results, repeat business, referrals, before/after outcomes, or measurable improvements.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 5.0 from 223 reviews. Displayed distribution was 222 five-star and 1 one-star review.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: 3% to 7.9% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars with no severe unresolved recent issues.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls4/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Mostly authentic-looking profile with varied reviewer histories, dates, wording, and platforms.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Responds to both positive and negative reviews with personalized language, usually within 7 days where date-visible.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: All material recent complaints are answered/resolved or have credible documented resolution attempts.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Review request language is neutral, transparent, and does not condition incentives on sentiment.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. No material duplicate selected Managed; current owner posting.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: All major profiles are claimed, accurate, monitored, and cross-linked to the official website with consistent logo, NAP, category, and service area.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints5/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: BBB A/A+ plus accreditation where applicable, or equivalent clean consumer-record evidence, with no material unresolved complaints in 24 months.
Finding. No clearly matching Ben D'Ovidio record was captured in the indexed search. Related brokerage/address corroboration is not a substitute for a named licence check.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Clean searches in relevant regulators/licensing boards and no material legal/regulatory issues found.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No adverse signals and positive reputable media or local coverage supports legitimacy.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents5/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: No issues found plus visible safety protocols, quality controls, warranties, certifications, or inspection standards relevant to the service.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active 7+ years or strong verifiable continuity through corporate records, archive/history, long-term reviews, and consistent identity.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity5/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying, selling, luxury condo and house representation, listing marketing and negotiation.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Comprehensive service pages define inclusions, exclusions, process, timelines, service area, deliverables, and fit/non-fit cases.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Burnaby and Greater Vancouver.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple relevant current credentials are verifiable and applicable to the specific service.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Detailed portfolio includes scope, photos/screenshots, outcomes, dates, or client context.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Lead-agent group using local SEO, reputation platforms and direct-response conversion pages.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Bios include relevant experience, credentials, responsibilities, or named specialists.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: 5.0 Google rating from 223 reviews; Rate-My-Agent 4.97 from 204 reviews; company states top 10% since 2015, top 1% Greater Vancouver since 2019 and top-rated 1% Canada in 2024.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Outcomes are measurable or well documented and tied to repeatable process/results.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Online booking/automated confirmation/SLA is visible and recent reviews across platforms consistently confirm fast response.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Self-service booking or structured estimate intake is available with confirmation, timeline, cancellation/rescheduling expectations, and post-request workflow.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Pricing factors, value proposition, estimate approach, or what affects cost is explained.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Policy pages explain scope, duration, exclusions, customer responsibilities, and how to request support.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Exceptional communication and professionalism are repeated across platforms, with staff names, proactive updates, and problem-solving examples.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety5/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Secure, fast, accessible, privacy-conscious site with strong mobile UX, working forms, no browser/security warnings, and good Core Web Vitals evidence where available.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Active maintenance within 90 days across service information, photos/projects, policies, offers, or educational content.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Valid LocalBusiness plus service, breadcrumb, FAQ, review/testimonial markup where allowed and no obvious spam.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Privacy, terms, cookie/consent where needed, accessibility basics, and unsubscribe/communication consent language are present.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence4/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Two or more relevant industry profiles are complete and include reviews, portfolio, credentials, or service details.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Recent reputable awards/rankings within 24 months with visible criteria or independent publisher.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some legitimate local, partner, association, or industry mentions exist.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active partnerships, association participation, or vendor-recognized status is visible.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Best-in-market educational library with expert authorship/review, dates, local specificity, original examples/data, and clear buyer decision support.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some recent local sponsorship, event, charity, school/team, or community participation is visible.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms3/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Contract/terms or service agreement expectations are explained at a general level.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Strong value evidence: differentiation, quality, warranty, results, or transparent pricing supports the price position.
Agent/PREC brand covering residential, commercial and land-assembly work across many BC communities. The official site and Rate-My-Agent profile use a Sutton office on East 49th Avenue, while the selected active GBP uses Cambie Street.
A strong fit for: Consumers seeking residential, commercial or land-assembly support across a broad BC footprint.
What stands out: Broad geographic positioning, multilingual/community-oriented personal brand and strong Rate-My-Agent volume.
Public proof: Rate-My-Agent 4.95 from 135 reviews. Selected active Google profile shows 3.8 from 28 reviews; a second profile is permanently closed and shows 4.5 from 51.
Each factor uses the same 0-to-5 rubric. Category weights add to 100 points. Open a category, then open any factor to see the finding, score standard, and exact source.
AIdentity & Local Presence6 / 10
Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
A1GBP completeness and control3/5
Finding. Live GBP was checked for identity, website, phone, hours, attributes and management signals.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Claimed or clearly managed profile with correct NAP, primary category, hours, website, and service area/location.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile, Google Maps, company website
Finding. Compared website NAP with the Google Business Profile and available regulatory/directory records. Material conflict: official site/Rate-My-Agent/BCFSA use 205-2607 E 49th and 604-257-8888; live GBP uses 7547 Cambie and 604-725-0017.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.4 of 2 available points. The 1/5 standard is: Three or more material conflicts in business name, phone, address, or website URL across prominent sources.
Finding. Public pages name these core markets: Vancouver plus a wide set of Lower Mainland and other BC communities as listed on Rate-My-Agent.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Service areas, neighborhoods, map, location page, or multi-location structure are clearly listed and consistent.
Finding. The selected Google profile lists: Daily 9:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Hours match between website and Google profile and are plausible for the service type.
Evidence checked. Google profile, website, social profiles, directories
Finding. Assessed exact-name discovery, review prominence and entity clarity in live Google Maps.
Why it matters. Verifies that the business is real, local, active, and clearly connected to its stated service area.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Business appears in top 10 map/organic results for several core service + city terms.
Evidence checked. Google Search, Google Maps, Bing, Apple Maps, local pack/manual SERP checks
Finding. Live Google evidence: 3.8 from 28 reviews. Displayed active-profile distribution: 19 five-star, 1 four-star and 8 one-star reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.6 of 3 available points. The 1/5 standard is: Review count is greater than 0 but below 25% of the top-10 local competitor median.
Evidence checked. Google Business Profile and top 10 local competitors for the same service + city query
Finding. Live Google evidence: 3.8 from 28 reviews. Displayed active-profile distribution: 19 five-star, 1 four-star and 8 one-star reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.8 of 3 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Most recent review is 3 to 6 months old, or reviews appear at least quarterly.
Evidence checked. Google and other major review platforms
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Reviews appear on four or more relevant platforms with broadly consistent ratings and no severe unresolved platform-specific pattern.
Finding. Reviewed platform breadth and sampled narrative specificity; platform totals were not combined with Google.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2.4 of 3 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Positive themes cover quality, communication, timeliness, value, and service outcome across multiple platforms.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all available reviews if fewer than 20
Finding. Live Google evidence: 3.8 from 28 reviews. Displayed active-profile distribution: 19 five-star, 1 four-star and 8 one-star reviews.
Why it matters. Measures the strength, recency, breadth, and detail of public client reviews.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.6 of 3 available points. The 1/5 standard is: More than 25% of visible reviews are 1-2 stars or serious complaints recur across platforms.
Evidence checked. Google and other review platforms; use last 24 months where feasible
Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
C1Authenticity-risk controls2/5
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Several suspicious patterns exist but no direct proof; reviewer must document why authenticity is uncertain.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Responds professionally to most negative reviews and gives a clear next step.
Evidence checked. Google, Yelp, BBB, Trustpilot, industry platforms
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Some complaints resolved, but recent unresolved issues remain or responses are incomplete.
Finding. Manual sample assessed detail, balance, resolution cues and platform context. This is not a forensic authenticity audit.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: No violation evidence; review asks appear neutral or are not publicly visible.
Evidence checked. Company review request language, platform alerts, FTC/Competition Bureau guidance, website testimonials
Finding. Second profile permanently closed: 4.5 from 51 reviews. Birdeye showed 4.7 from 72 at the older East 49th address. Unclaimed.
Why it matters. Looks for authentic review patterns, fair collection practices, and professional public responses.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.4 of 2 available points. The 1/5 standard is: Many unmanaged duplicate profiles create material confusion for customers.
Evidence checked. Google, Apple, Bing, Yelp, BBB, social profiles, official website links
Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
D1BBB and consumer complaints3/5
Finding. Targeted public-source query did not establish a material BBB/consumer-complaint pattern during this sweep; absence is not conclusive.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: BBB A-/A/A+ or comparable clean complaint profile with few resolved complaints.
Finding. Named record was not conclusively captured in indexed search. Sutton office address and phone are corroborated by BCFSA records for professionals at the same office; that is not a substitute for a named licence check.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Isolated resolved issue with clear remediation, or no mandatory registry found after reasonable search.
Evidence checked. Federal/provincial/state/municipal regulators, court records, licensing boards, professional associations
Finding. Targeted adverse-media query found no verified severe item used in scoring, except disclosed review allegations. This is not a legal clearance.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: No adverse signals found in structured searches for brand + scam, fraud, lawsuit, complaint, and regulator terms.
D4Safety, workmanship and service-quality incidents2/5
Finding. Review sample was scanned for serious service-quality incidents and resolution cues.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Several quality failures appear, but scope/severity is moderate or partially resolved.
Finding. Active website, GBP and current operations were cross-checked; regulatory freshness gaps are separately disclosed.
Why it matters. Checks for material unresolved complaints, regulatory concerns, identity conflicts, or continuity risk.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Active 3 to 7 years with stable NAP, website, reviews, and service focus.
Evidence checked. Website age clues, corporate registry, Google profile history, reviews over time, social history, news, archive search
Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
E1Service clarity4/5
Finding. Services captured: Residential buying and selling, commercial real estate and land assembly.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Services are described by use case, customer type, problem, industry, or deliverable with clear inclusions.
Evidence checked. Website service pages, Google services, directories, proposals if publicly available
Finding. Specialization and market fit: Vancouver and multiple BC markets.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Company appears category-leading for the exact local search intent with niche pages, relevant reviews, portfolio proof, and differentiators.
Evidence checked. Website, directories, portfolio, content, reviews mentioning service type
Finding. Brokerage/licensing and named credentials were reviewed where conclusive.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: At least one relevant current credential, licence, certification, or association is verifiable.
Evidence checked. Licensing boards, professional associations, certification issuers, company website, directories
Finding. Listings, sales, testimonials or case-style evidence were checked for specificity.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Several relevant project examples or case studies are visible and match the service category.
Evidence checked. Website portfolio, project pages, case studies, social posts, before/after photos, third-party profiles
Finding. Operating model: Personal brand operating through Sutton Group-West Coast Realty with broad referral and community reach.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Team or leadership roles are visible and plausibly connected to the service.
Evidence checked. About page, LinkedIn, professional registries, team pages, author bios, Google profile, directories
Finding. Public proof recorded without treating self-published claims as independently audited: Rate-My-Agent 4.95 from 135 reviews. Selected active Google profile shows 3.8 from 28 reviews; a second profile is permanently closed and shows 4.5 from 51.
Why it matters. Measures visible experience, specialization, credentials, and proof for the real estate services offered.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Objective evidence exists through reviews, testimonials, photos, screenshots, or project descriptions.
Evidence checked. Case studies, reviews, testimonials, photos, third-party results, dashboards where publicly available
Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
F1Contact access5/5
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Prominent multi-channel contact with accessibility accommodations, market-relevant language support, response expectations, and low-friction mobile experience.
Evidence checked. Website header/footer/contact page, Google profile, social profiles, accessibility info
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple recent reviews cite fast response, punctuality, or easy scheduling.
Evidence checked. Website, Google profile, reviews, chat/booking tools, social response badges
Finding. Contact routes, intake prompts and availability cues were checked across the website and GBP.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Process explains timeline, required details, site visit/consultation rules, documents, and next steps.
Evidence checked. Website forms, booking pages, service process pages, Google booking links, directories
Finding. Compared pre-contact explanation of value, fees and cost expectations. Most providers disclose process more clearly than price.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only vague 'contact us for pricing' language exists with no value or pricing factors.
Evidence checked. Website pricing pages, FAQ, service pages, directories, reviews mentioning value
Finding. Assessed guarantees, policies, logistics and aftercare. Terms were treated cautiously when not fully visible.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Clear warranty, guarantee, service policy, refund/cancellation, or aftercare terms are visible.
Evidence checked. Website terms, warranty pages, FAQs, review responses, contracts if public
Finding. Review narratives were sampled for communication, professionalism and continuity.
Why it matters. Looks at responsiveness, communication, process clarity, service recovery, and follow-up.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Multiple recent reviews consistently mention clear communication, punctuality, cleanliness, or professionalism.
Evidence checked. Review text across major platforms; sample at least 20 reviews or all if fewer
Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
G1HTTPS, mobile and safety4/5
Finding. HTTPS and basic live-site trust were verified; this was not a lab-based performance or security test.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Site is fast/mobile-friendly with no major visible errors, broken forms, or intrusive barriers.
Evidence checked. Official website, browser security, PageSpeed/Core Web Vitals where available, mobile check
Finding. Checked for current-looking content, dated claims and stale statistics.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Freshness is unclear; core pages may be current but no dates or updates are visible.
Finding. Search-ready structure was judged from crawlable pages, entity clarity and topical architecture; no full schema validator run.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: LocalBusiness or equivalent structured NAP/entity information is present and broadly consistent.
Evidence checked. Google Rich Results Test/Schema validator if used, page source, search snippets, indexed pages
Finding. Reviewed visible legal/privacy/accessibility cues at a high level; not legal or WCAG certification.
Why it matters. Checks whether the website is secure, usable, current, and easy for people and search engines to understand.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Privacy policy and basic terms/contact disclosures are visible for customer forms.
Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
H1Directory and marketplace presence4/5
Finding. At least one major directory or professional marketplace identity was captured.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.6 of 2 available points. The 4/5 standard is: Two or more relevant industry profiles are complete and include reviews, portfolio, credentials, or service details.
Finding. Awards were logged with dates when visible and treated as publisher claims unless separately corroborated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Credible local or industry recognition is visible and verifiable.
Evidence checked. Award pages, ranking pages, local newspapers, industry bodies, directories, company site cross-check
Finding. Assessed breadth and quality of third-party profiles; no backlink-index volume was estimated.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only low-quality directories or syndicated listings mention the business.
Evidence checked. News, chambers, associations, partner pages, universities, government/vendor pages, backlink tools if available
Finding. Brokerage affiliation and named memberships/partnerships were recorded where visible.
Why it matters. Measures credible validation beyond the provider's own website and open review profiles.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Verified local, industry, professional, or vendor memberships are current and relevant.
Evidence checked. Association membership directories, partner pages, vendor/certification directories, community organizations
Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
I1Social legitimacy and activity5/5
Finding. At least three major social identities were sought and matched; activity was not uniformly quantified.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 2 of 2 available points. The 5/5 standard is: Authentic active social presence with engagement, local proof, service examples, staff/community visibility, and no spam or bought-engagement signs.
Finding. Guides, videos and buyer/seller education were evaluated for usefulness and market specificity.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Useful category or local guides answer common buyer concerns and show service understanding.
Finding. Community or charity proof was recorded where substantive; absence may reflect incomplete public disclosure.
Why it matters. Looks for recent, useful, locally relevant content and genuine community activity.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Some recent local sponsorship, event, charity, school/team, or community participation is visible.
Evidence checked. Company site, social profiles, local news, sponsorship pages, charity/event pages, chamber/business groups
Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
J1Contract, scope and terms2/5
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Basic terms exist but scope, change orders, cancellations, or dispute handling are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 0.8 of 2 available points. The 2/5 standard is: Only payment methods are mentioned; timing, deposits, financing, and fees are unclear.
Finding. Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
Why it matters. Measures how clearly fees, contract terms, likely costs, service scope, and value are explained before contact.
Score explanation. This factor contributes 1.2 of 2 available points. The 3/5 standard is: Company appears competitively positioned based on stated value, reviews, outcomes, or pricing factors.
The public pages focus on service scope and consultation. Confirm fees, included marketing, third-party costs, term, and cancellation provisions before appointing the provider.
Contract, scope and terms2/5
Compared scope, terms, fee/payment visibility and value framing. A score below 5 generally reflects limited pre-contact commercial detail.
