How We Compare Practice Tests

We are, and we sell one of the products being marked. That is a conflict of interest, so the page rules are set up to limit what it can do. The rubric is public before the scores. Every score is calculated by code from a data file, so nobody types a total. Every cell in a table carries an evidence note with a date. Where a competitor beats us on a criterion, the comparison page says so in a block of its own, and where we do not come first overall, it says that at the top.

LifeScore is paid for by readers who buy its practice packs, as the editorial policy sets out. We have no sponsorship, paid placement or affiliate deal with any option listed, and the links to other sites are plain links that earn us nothing.

• One set of rules for everyone. The same function scores LifeScore and every competitor. The totals on the comparison pages are its output.
• Unknown is not zero. Most competitor pages could only be read as search results (see below). When a result did not say something, that detail scores the midpoint, 5 out of 10, and the cell is marked as unconfirmed. The exception is the number of full-length mocks: a number a vendor does not publish is not a promise you can rely on, so it scores 0.
• Conflicts go the vendor's way. Where a vendor's own pages disagree on a price or a count, we score the figure that is better for the vendor and note the conflict on the page. It still costs the vendor one transparency item, because published terms that contradict each other are the thing that criterion measures.
• Price is per mock, not the sticker. The value score uses the cheapest way to buy with at least 30 days of access, divided by the full-length timed mocks it includes. A cheaper product with no mocks scores low on value, and a free product with several full mocks scores top marks.
• Ties go to the option with more full-length mocks, then the higher format score, then alphabetical order.
• No stars, no reviews. The scores are a checklist result. They are not buyer reviews, and the pages carry no review or rating markup. We do not use named testers. LifeScore's own section says “Tested by LifeScore” with the date, because we ran our own product. Every other section says the product was assessed from its public page, because we have not bought or taken it.

For each option we work down a ladder and record which rung supports each cell: the vendor's own page read in full, then an archived copy no more than 90 days old, then a search result that states the fact, and if none does, we leave the fact out and write “not published”.

For every edition so far, including the IBEW and mechanical pages checked on 19 October 2026, the research environment could not open any competitor's website, because its network policy allows only a short list of hosts. We did not work around that. Every competitor cell therefore rests on a search result that states the fact, usually with the vendor's URL and sometimes with a note on how old the crawled page was. Where that note says a page is more than a year old, the price is shown with a flag and the section says so. Paid products are described as assessed from their public page; we have not bought them. We have not taken any competitor's free test, so “format fidelity” for competitors is what the vendor says its test is, not our own stopwatch.

Each comparison page lists the date its facts were checked, and every tool section has an evidence list: the quote and the URL behind each cell, and how it was gathered. Every row is re-checked monthly. If a row has gone 60 days without a check, the page says so on its face, and we pull the page if the delay runs on.

We know our own product completely and the others through search results, so the transparency criterion in particular is easier for us to prove than for a competitor to prove for itself. Three safeguards: unknown details score the midpoint instead of zero; each comparison page prints the ranking you would get with the transparency criterion removed; and a vendor that thinks a cell is wrong can send us the page and we will re-score within five working days.

The method also cannot see quality that no checklist captures: whether a question is a good one, or whether a practice score predicts the real result. Neither can we, for our own tests, and our pages say that.

If a price, a count or a feature on a comparison page is wrong, email support@lifescoretest.com with the page address and a link to the vendor page that shows the correct fact. We fix confirmed errors within five working days, change the date on the row, and log the change here. Logged corrections to date: none.

Comparison pages are written only for tests we sell. Six are published, and each is built from one typed data file by the code that runs this rubric:

• Best Wonderlic Practice Tests Online (2026), Compared
• Best CCAT Practice Tests Online (2026), Compared
• Best ASVAB Practice Tests (2026), Free and Paid
• Best ATI TEAS Practice Tests (2026), Free and Paid
• Best IBEW Aptitude Test Practice Tests (2026), Compared
• Best Mechanical Aptitude Practice Tests (2026), Compared

The IBEW-style and mechanical-style pages differ from the other four in one way that matters for the rubric: those two tests are sold on their own and are not part of the all-exam pass, so their LifeScore rows say so and quote one price for one test. Their reference formats are in the table above, labelled reported, and a product that practises other mechanical tests as well as the Bennett format is not scored down for it.

How the LifeScore questions themselves are built and checked is on a separate methodology page.