We tell you what a website is before it costs you something.
SiteScano started because the tools people had were binary. A browser warning tells you a site is dangerous only after enough people have already been harmed for it to get listed. Almost every scam site is too new and too small for that. We built something that judges what a site is, not only what it has been caught doing.
What we actually do
We run two kinds of check on a website and publish the result as a permanent, public report.
The automated pass queries security engines, registration records, hosting, the pages themselves and link data, and produces a score from 1 to 100. That happens in seconds, on request, for any domain anyone asks about.
The second pass is a person. An analyst opens the site and reads it — judging who stands behind the content, whether the writing is original, whether the commercial terms are honest. Scanners cannot do that, and it is where most of the useful judgement lives.
In short
- ✓Reputation reports on any domain, free to read in full
- ✓Expert manual review on domains where the automated answer is unconvincing
- ✓Monitoring and cleanup for owners of the sites we assess
- ✓A published methodology anyone can argue with
How we make money, in plain terms
This is the first question any reputation site should answer, because the answer determines whether the rest of the site is worth reading.
Where revenue comes from
- ✓Subscriptions bought by readers who want deeper reports
- ✓Monitoring and cleanup bought by site owners for their own sites
- ✓API licensing to marketplaces and platforms checking domains at volume
Where it never comes from
- ×Payment to create, change, delay or delete a report
- ×Payment to raise a score or suppress a bad one
- ×Payment to remove or bury a negative review
- ×Selling what you looked up to anyone
Why buying a monitoring subscription changes nothing
A site owner can buy monitoring for their own domain. That subscription tells them when something breaks; it has no path to the score. The analyst writing a review does not see billing status, and adjustments are capped and require a stated reason and a second reviewer. If we ever failed at this, the failure would show up as reports that disagree with the evidence printed beneath them — which is exactly why we publish the evidence.
What we believe
Show the evidence, not just the verdict
A number nobody can check is worth nothing. Every report shows the signals underneath it so you can disagree with our conclusion and still use our findings.
A low score is not an accusation
Young, small and quiet is not the same as fraudulent. We say so on every report, because the alternative is a tool that punishes new businesses for existing.
Be correctable
We publish assessments that affect real businesses. Anyone can challenge one, corrections are free, and we say publicly when we got something wrong.
Automation collects, people judge
Machines are good at gathering and terrible at intent. We use each for what it is good at and never publish machine-written prose in a reviewer's voice.
How we got here
SiteScano is new as a public product, and older than that as a tool.
- Early 2026
Built for our own use. We work with clients whose businesses depend on knowing which websites to deal with, and the commercial blacklists kept returning "unknown" on sites that were plainly fake. So we assembled our own checks instead.
- Through 2026
Used internally on client work, week after week. That is where the manual review track came from — the automated signals could not separate a young legitimate business from a young fraudulent one, and a person reading the site could.
- Now
Opened to everyone. The tool we were already running is the tool on this site, with a published methodology so anyone can argue with how it scores.
What being new means, and what it does not
We are not going to pretend to a track record we do not have. SiteScano launched publicly in 2026, and the volume of reports will grow from here.
What is not new is the method. Every report shows the evidence underneath the score, so you can judge the finding on what it rests on rather than on how long we have existed.
The team
Manual reviews are signed. Every published review records the analyst who wrote it and the reviewer who approved it.
Ishika Verma
Head of Research & Methodology
Owns the scoring model, the weighting behind every rating and the corrections process when a verdict is challenged.
Vivek Gupta
Trust & Safety Investigator
Runs deeper investigations on flagged sites and shapes the findings published in each report.
Michael Jackson
Fraud Research Associate
Gathers scam reports and payment red flags that feed into each site's rating.
Sarah Chen
Security Engineer
Maintains the scanning pipeline and re-checks any finding that gets disputed.
We are hiring analysts and engineers. See open roles.
Read the method before you trust the score.
Our weights, our caps, what we do when evidence is missing, and how to challenge a finding are all written out. If something there does not hold up, tell us.