This is the method we use for every comparison and best-of guide on RestaurantBookingSystem.com. Publishing it makes our decisions easier to check, challenge, and improve.
1. Define the question and eligible providers
Each guide starts with a specific restaurant need, such as reducing no-shows, managing several locations, or finding a system without per-cover fees. We define the intended restaurant type and the minimum capabilities a provider must have before we build the shortlist.
A provider is not included simply because it is popular or because it has a commercial relationship with Resos. We include products that are relevant to the stated use case and available to the restaurants addressed by the guide.
2. Use an evidence hierarchy
We prefer evidence in this order:
- Official pricing, product, contract, help center, and legal pages from the provider
- Direct product testing, written provider confirmation, or current sales material
- Reliable third-party documentation when primary information is unavailable
- User reports for experience-based context, clearly separated from verified product facts
Prices, commissions, contract terms, market availability, and feature claims should link to a primary source. If a provider does not publish a fact, we label it as undisclosed or based on a dated secondary source instead of presenting it as certain.
3. Evaluate the factors that affect restaurant operations
We assess providers across five shared dimensions:
- Total cost: subscriptions, per-cover charges, payment fees, setup costs, add-ons, and contract length
- Reservation tools: booking widget, floor plan, waitlist, reminders, deposits, and no-show controls
- Operational fit: setup effort, staff usability, integrations, data export, support, and multi-location needs
- Guest acquisition: direct booking options, marketplace reach, Google booking support, and ownership of the guest relationship
- Fit for the stated use case: how well the product serves the restaurant type and problem named in the guide
4. Turn evidence into recommendations
We do not use one universal winner. A marketplace can be the strongest option for a new restaurant that needs discovery, while a direct booking product may suit an established restaurant that already generates demand. Rankings and verdicts must explain the use case, trade-offs, and evidence behind the position.
We do not accept payment for ranking positions. Resos does not receive an automatic first place, and we publish relevant limitations for Resos alongside those of other providers.
5. Verify and refresh volatile facts
Pricing, plan names, fees, contracts, integrations, features, customer counts, and market availability can change. A full commercial verification checks every volatile claim on the page against the primary sources listed in its metadata. Required commercial pages expire after no more than 90 days, and CI blocks an expired or missing verification.
The visible "Last reviewed" date comes from the fact verification record, not the general editorial update date. Editing wording or formatting can change updatedDate, but it does not refresh verification.verifiedDate. That date changes only after the full source checklist has been completed. Readers should still confirm final terms with the provider before buying.
If an official source does not publish a price or contract term, we label it "quote required" and provide a quote checklist. We do not use an anonymous review or third-party estimate as a current rate card.
Ownership and editorial accountability
RestaurantBookingSystem.com is owned and operated by Resos, which sells restaurant booking software and appears in some comparisons. Resos may benefit when a reader chooses it. We disclose this on every comparison and best-of guide and apply the same evidence standards to Resos as to other providers.
Emil Falk Knudsen is the named editorial lead and is accountable for the published method and commercial editorial content.
Corrections
If you find an outdated claim or a source that does not support the text, email hi@resos.com. We review specific corrections against primary evidence and update the page when needed.