Methodology
How we compare providers
One fixed rubric, set before we looked at any results, applied to every provider identically. We score observable, checkable facts — not things we'd have to guess or mystery-shop.
The seven criteria and their weights
| Criterion | Weight | What we score (observable) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Methodology & technical documentation | 24% | Published methodology, a sample report you can inspect, and stated engineering/technical personnel. | |
| Relevant property-type evidence per-type | 30% | A dedicated page, named case study, or documented project FOR THIS property type. | |
| Deliverables | 14% | Fixed-asset schedule, Form 3115 support, and a CPA/tax-software-ready export. | |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | A published price/fee range or a real estimator, versus quote-only. | |
| Delivery options | 7% | Site-visit, virtual, or hybrid — and whether the buyer can choose. | |
| Audit-support terms | 8% | Precisely quoted audit-support scope and exclusions ("included" ≠ "available" ≠ "representation"). | |
| Turnaround transparency | 7% | A published turnaround estimate, versus not stated. | |
| Total | 100% |
What the 1–5 scale means
Methodology & technical documentation
| 1 | No published methodology and no inspectable sample report. |
| 3 | Engineering-based approach stated; limited public detail or no public sample. |
| 5 | Published methodology, a public sample report, and named engineering personnel. |
Relevant property-type evidence
| 1 | No visible evidence of work in this property type. |
| 3 | This type mentioned within broad "all property types" coverage; no dedicated asset. |
| 5 | A dedicated page or named case study specifically for this property type. |
Deliverables
| 1 | Deliverables not described publicly. |
| 3 | Study PDF plus fixed-asset detail described; 3115/export not spelled out. |
| 5 | Fixed-asset schedule, Form 3115 support, and tax-software-ready export all stated. |
Pricing transparency
| 1 | Quote-only; no published fee or estimator. |
| 3 | A free estimate/proposal, but no published fee before contact. |
| 5 | Published fees or a working price estimator on the public site. |
Delivery options
| 1 | One rigid delivery mode with no alternative. |
| 3 | Single mode (site-visit OR virtual) that fits most buyers. |
| 5 | Both in-person and virtual offered, buyer chooses (hybrid). |
Audit-support terms
| 1 | Audit support not addressed publicly. |
| 3 | Audit support advertised but scope/exclusions not precisely stated. |
| 5 | Scope and exclusions of audit support quoted precisely and publicly. |
Turnaround transparency
| 1 | No turnaround guidance published. |
| 3 | General "fast turnaround" language without a stated window. |
| 5 | A specific published turnaround window. |
Engineering-first firms vs. national accounting firms
The firms compared here fall into two groups, and the rubric explains why a specialized engineering firm can outrank a much larger accounting firm for a given property type:
- Engineering-first providers build the study around in-house engineers and per-property-type experience — e.g. Cost Seg Smart, Source Advisors, Engineered Tax Services, RE Cost Seg, CSSI, Capstan, CLA and Cherry Bekaert. They tend to score higher on relevant type evidence and methodology.
- National accounting / advisory firms deliver cost segregation as one line inside a broad tax practice — e.g. Ryan, BDO, Baker Tilly, Plante Moran, Andersen, CBIZ. They are recognizable and capable, but usually publish less per-type evidence and are quote-only, so they often land mid-pack for a specific type despite their size.
Each firm's group is labeled in the comparison tables. Neither group is "better" outright — the point is to match a provider to the property type and the buyer's needs.
Measured fact vs. editorial judgment
Every cell in a provider table is a measured fact with a dated source. Any recommendation we add ("best suited for…") is editorial judgment and labeled as such — it is not a precise score. We deliberately excluded criteria we can't substantiate publicly (blanket "report quality", CPA-acceptance rates, "communication"), because filling those cells would force us to guess.
Deliberately excluded criteria
- CPA acceptance % — no measurable public evidence.
- Communication — unverifiable without mystery-shopping or invented reviews.
- Blanket "report quality" — not comparable without a current sample from every provider.
- Loose "audit support" — providers define it differently; we score only the precisely-quoted terms.
Frequently asked
Do you rank your own company higher because you operate the site?
No. The rubric weights are fixed in advance and applied to every provider identically. Cost Seg Smart is scored on the same observable facts as everyone else. On several property types other providers score higher, and we say so.
Why don't you score 'report quality' or 'CPA acceptance'?
Because we can't measure them without a current sample report from every provider or invented survey data. We score only observable, checkable facts and label editorial judgment separately.
Do weights change by property type?
No. Weights are fixed. The only input that varies by type is 'relevant property-type evidence' — whether a provider has a dedicated page or named case study for that specific type, which is itself a per-type fact.