Figures verified against each provider's own pricing page.
Competing lists open with a testing claim — 36 providers, 120 hours — and then publish nothing that would let you check it. The claim is unfalsifiable, which means it carries no information, which means the ranking behind it is an assertion rather than a finding.
This page is the alternative: the whole rubric, the weights, the inputs, and the exclusions. If you disagree with a weight, you can see exactly what changing it would do to the order. That is the point.
The six criteria and their weights
Effective cost per month
The real per-month price on the twelve-month term, taken from the provider's own plan page.
Cost per simultaneous stream
The cheapest per-stream price a household can reach — the monthly price of the largest plan divided by its connection count.
Risk cover
Whether anything protects money already paid: a published refund window, disputable payment methods, no silent auto-renewal.
Trial quality
Whether a trial exists, whether it demands a card, and how fast it is issued.
Operating history
How long the provider has traded continuously. The best available predictor that an annual plan survives to month twelve.
Install friction
How many steps sit between paying and watching, and whether a published install code or browser player removes the sideload step.
How each score is calculated
Cost per month (25). The cheapest effective monthly rate published, divided into the provider's own. The cheapest provider takes the full 25; a provider charging 20% more takes proportionally less. No curve, no judgement.
Cost per stream (20). The lowest published price per simultaneous connection, scored the same way. Where a provider does not publish per-device pricing, it is scored on its single-connection price and the gap is stated on its entry.
Risk cover (15). Full marks for a published refund window. Seven of fifteen where none exists but payment is disputable and renewal is not automatic.
Trial quality (15). Fifteen for a card-free trial, twelve for a trial that does not state it is card-free, ten where the trial window is restricted to certain days.
Operating history (15). Fifteen for a published founding date with continuous operation; eight where none is published. Absence is not evidence of a short history — but on a twelve-month prepayment, a verifiable record is worth more than an unverifiable one.
Install friction (10). Ten for a published install code or a browser player that removes the sideload step; seven otherwise.
What we refuse to score
- Channel countsNo one can verify them, including us. Every panel publishes a different number for the same line-up.
- VOD library sizeSame problem, plus dead entries inflate the total without adding anything to watch.
- Uptime percentagesA provider's own uptime figure is a marketing number with no audit behind it.
- Hours testedEvery competing list claims a testing figure. None publishes the data behind it, so the claim carries no information.
Every competing ranking scores at least two of these. We publish the exclusion instead, because a ranking built on unverifiable inputs cannot be checked by the person relying on it.
The current result
| # | Provider | Score | Where the points came from | 12-month | Per stream |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 |  FreeGoTV | 9.0/10 | $8.33/mo | $7.50/stream | |
| 02 |  BexyTV | 8.2/10 | $8.33/mo | $15/stream | |
| 03 |  ViewTVY | 7.5/10 | $8.33/mo | $10/stream | |
| 04 |  EarthWebTV | 7.3/10 | $9.17/mo | $8/stream | |
| 05 |  TereaTV | 7.1/10 | $10/mo | $10/stream | |
| 06 |  VinomTV | 6.6/10 | $10/mo | $10/stream | |
| 07 |  VocoTV | 8.2/10 | $8.33/mo | $6.67/stream | |
| 08 |  KroozTV | 8.2/10 | $8.33/mo | $6.67/stream |
Each score is computed from the figures in the directory. The list order is our editorial ranking, so it does not always follow the score column. Verified 14 August 2026.
Where the inputs come from
Each provider's entry links the exact page used. Prices in this market move without notice, so every figure carries the date it was read rather than a vague claim to be current.
What would change a ranking
A price change. A published refund policy. A founding date appearing on an about page. Those are the inputs, so those are the things that move the order — not an editorial decision, and not a commercial relationship.
If you think a weight is wrong, the whole rubric is above and you can work out what changing it would do. That is deliberate. A ranking you cannot audit is an opinion wearing a number.
Questions about the method
How do you score IPTV providers?
Six weighted criteria out of 100: effective cost per month (25), cost per simultaneous stream (20), risk cover (15), trial quality (15), operating history (15) and install friction (10).
Why don't you use channel counts?
Because no reader can verify them, and neither can we. Providers publish different totals for the same line-up, so the number carries no information.
Do providers pay to rank higher?
No. The score is computed from published figures. A commercial relationship cannot move it without the underlying price changing.
How often are the figures re-checked?
The date at the top of every page is the date the prices were read. When they are re-read, the date and the scores change together.
What if a provider disputes a figure?
Send the plan page showing the current price and it is corrected the same week, with the date updated.