Research methodology
Where our evidence comes from, and how we weigh it.
Sources we use
We synthesise independent practitioner evaluations, published vendor documentation, peer-review sites (such as G2, Gartner Peer Insights and TrustRadius as cited by our sources), and — over time — anonymised outcomes from real finance transformations. Every source is recorded with its publisher and date.
How sources are weighted
- Independence. Independent, practitioner-led evaluations carry more weight than vendor-authored material.
- Corroboration. Agreement across two or more independent sources lifts a claim to high confidence.
- Recency. Newer evidence supersedes older evidence; each source carries its date.
- Specificity. Evidence tied to a concrete capability outweighs general brand sentiment.
First-party research
Some sources in the evidence base are our own. dilynx grew out of FinanceCopilotHQ, a finance-software research publication that preceded this platform, and part of that corpus was carried into the graph. Every citation drawn from it is labelled first-party so it is never mistaken for independent third-party evidence.
The weighting rules above apply to it without exception: a capability claim requires at least one independent source, and high confidence requires two or more independent publishers agreeing. First-party research can corroborate a claim; it cannot establish one on its own, and it cannot raise a confidence grade by itself. See editorial independence.
What we don't do
We do not accept payment to include, rank or rate a vendor. We do not publish claims we cannot attribute. We do not present a single vendor blog post as if it were independent verification. We do not present our own research as though it came from someone else.
Coverage
dilynx is deliberately deep before broad. We cover the financial close and adjacent capabilities today and expand cluster by cluster — each new area held to the same sourcing bar.