How We Test & Review Pet Products
Every score on this site comes from real products, real pets, and a documented process — not press kits, not brand relationships, not guesswork.
Our Commitment to Pet Owners
PetsBigStore was founded on a single frustration: the pet product review space is dominated by sites that earn their living by sending you to the highest-paying affiliate link, not the best product. We built our methodology to be the antidote to that — rigorous enough to trust, transparent enough to verify.
Our editorial team includes two practicing veterinarians, a certified professional dog trainer, and a feline behaviour specialist. Every product that earns a score on this site has been physically purchased, physically tested on real animals, and reviewed by at least one credentialed expert before publication.
We do earn affiliate commissions when readers purchase products through our links. This is how we fund independent testing — but it comes with an ironclad rule: the commission rate associated with any product is invisible to our reviewers and has no bearing on any score. Products with zero affiliate relationships are reviewed with the same rigour as those that generate significant revenue.
Every score, verdict, and recommendation on this site can be traced back to a documented testing record. If you question a score, email our editorial team and we'll share the underlying data.
Our 7-Step Testing Process
Every product review follows this exact sequence. No shortcuts. No exceptions. If a product hasn't completed all seven steps, it doesn't get a score.
Our 10-Point Scoring Rubric
All products are scored on a weighted 10-point scale across five dimensions. The weights differ slightly between food reviews and equipment reviews to reflect what matters most in each category.
| Dimension | Food Weight | Gear Weight | What We Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrition & Safety | 30% | 25% | AAFCO compliance, ingredient safety, absence of toxins, life-stage appropriateness, caloric density accuracy, guaranteed analysis vs. label claims |
| Ingredient / Build Quality | 20% | 25% | Named vs. generic protein sources, whole vs. fragment ingredients, BPA/toxin-free materials, construction quality, durability after 8-week trial |
| Real-World Performance | 20% | 25% | Palatability scores (food), ease of use (gear), stool quality and coat changes (food), durability and reliability (gear), pet acceptance rate |
| Value for Money | 15% | 15% | Cost per serving (food), cost vs. comparable alternatives, price stability over 90 days, subscription discount availability |
| Brand Transparency | 15% | 10% | Country of manufacture disclosed, recall history, factory audit availability, customer support quality, honest marketing claims |
How We Test Pet Food in Detail
Pet food testing is the most complex category we cover. Getting it wrong has real consequences for animal health. Here is the complete detail of our food evaluation methodology.
Label & Ingredient Analysis
Before any animal tastes the product, our veterinary team conducts a full label audit. We check: whether the product carries an AAFCO statement of nutritional adequacy and for which life stage; the first five ingredients (protein source quality — named animal protein vs. "meat meal" vs. "animal by-products"); the presence of known problematic additives such as BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin, propylene glycol, and artificial colorants; the calcium-to-phosphorus ratio (critical for kidney health); omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid presence; and whether the caloric content and feeding guidelines are realistically appropriate for the target weight range.
We compare the guaranteed analysis (the minimum/maximum figures printed on the label) against AAFCO minimum nutrient profiles for the stated life stage. A food that claims to be complete and balanced for adult dogs must meet AAFCO Adult Maintenance standards — we verify this, not assume it. Labels that carry vague claims ("supports health," "natural nutrition") without an AAFCO compliance statement receive automatic deductions in our transparency score.
Trial Protocol: Pet Food
All food trials follow a structured transition protocol: during weeks 1–2, we introduce the new food at 25% of the daily ration alongside the animal's current food, increasing to 50% in weeks 3–4 to allow digestive adaptation. From week 5 onward, the animal receives 100% of the test food. This protocol mirrors what we'd recommend to any pet owner and ensures we're measuring the food's performance rather than the disruption of a sudden diet change.
Our standardised palatability metric: at each meal, we record acceptance rate (ate immediately / ate after prompting / refused), approximate consumption percentage (in 10% increments), and any signs of reduced enthusiasm compared to baseline. A food that animals consistently greet with enthusiasm, consume fully, and show no gastrointestinal distress on scores significantly higher than one that's nutritionally adequate but repeatedly left in the bowl.
We also track coat condition using a four-point scale assessed monthly by the reviewing veterinarian: 1 (dull, dry, or excessive shedding), 2 (normal), 3 (noticeably improved gloss), 4 (exceptional coat quality). Energy level changes are recorded by the primary caregiver on a standardised 5-point scale weekly. Stool quality is assessed daily using the Purina Fecal Scoring System (1–7), with a score of 3–4 representing ideal consistency.
Value Calculation for Pet Food
We calculate cost per day (not cost per bag) based on the feeding guidelines for a representative 10 kg adult dog or 4 kg adult cat. We track prices monthly over 90 days and use the 90-day average to avoid single-day sale anomalies. We also check whether subscription pricing is genuinely cheaper (many "auto-ship" programmes charge more than advertised), whether multi-bag bulk discounts hold up, and how price has trended over the past year based on available historical data.
How We Test Equipment & Accessories
From cat trees to aquarium filters to dog harnesses, equipment testing follows a different protocol to food — but is no less rigorous.
For all physical products, we assess: assembly experience (was the manual clear? how long did it take? were all parts present?); material quality (fabric, plastic, metal construction assessed by visual inspection and physical stress testing); safety features (no sharp edges, no loose small parts, non-toxic materials with manufacturer certification where relevant); ease of cleaning (critical for food and water bowls, litter boxes, and aquarium equipment); and pet acceptance rate (does the animal actually use it, or avoid it?).
For aquarium and filtration equipment specifically, we measure flow rate against manufacturer claims using a calibrated container-and-timer method; filter media lifespan by tracking water clarity, nitrite levels, and ammonia levels weekly with API test kits; noise level using a decibel meter at 30 cm; and power consumption using a plug-in energy monitor.
For pet toys, our primary metric is sustained engagement — we record how many sessions per week the animal initiates play with the toy unprompted over eight weeks, and note any safety incidents (chewing, part separation, choking hazard potential). Any toy that shows part separation after normal use is automatically disqualified from a positive recommendation regardless of its other scores.
Our Expert Review Team
Behind every score is a real person with real credentials. Our team is small, experienced, and not for sale.
Our Editorial Independence Pledge
We earn money through affiliate commissions. We protect our editorial independence through these four policies — any violation is grounds for immediate editorial review and public disclosure.
What We Don't Do
As important as what we do is what we refuse to do. These are absolute policies, not aspirational guidelines.
- Accept free products, press samples, or review units from brands or PR agencies
- Allow affiliate commission rates to influence review scores or product recommendations
- Publish reviews without completing a real-world trial with an actual animal
- Remove, soften, or revise negative reviews at a brand's request or commercial pressure
- Use stock photography as "our testing photos" — all product images are taken in our own test environment
- Award "best pick" to products that paid for placement, sponsorship, or advertising
- Write positive introductions for products that score below 7.0 — we don't bury bad scores in positive framing
- Aggregate consumer reviews from Amazon or Chewy as a substitute for independent testing
What We Do Instead
- Buy every product through standard retail channels, the same as you would
- Run minimum 8-week real-world trials with real animals in real homes
- Have every food review verified by a credentialed veterinarian before publication
- Publish exact scores to one decimal place, not inflated whole numbers
- Log and publicly display every score change with date and reason
- Disclose all affiliate relationships clearly in every article
- Respond to reader questions and concerns within 72 hours
- Update reviews when formulas change, prices shift, or safety issues emerge
Our Score Update Policy
A score is only trustworthy if it stays current. We have four automatic triggers for re-evaluation:
Formula or Material Change: When a brand changes a recipe, sourcing, or manufacturing facility, we treat the product as new and initiate a fresh trial. Formula changes are frequently unannounced — we catch them by comparing archived ingredient lists against current packaging quarterly. If a product's formula changes significantly, its published score is suspended pending re-review.
Price Change Affecting Value Score: If a product's price rises or falls by more than 20%, we recalculate its value-for-money subscore and update the overall score accordingly. We believe a product's score should reflect what you're actually being asked to pay today — not the introductory price it launched at two years ago.
Regulatory Action or Recall: Any product subject to an FDA, AAFCO, or relevant regulatory recall or safety notice is immediately flagged on its review page. Recalled products are not recommended until the recall is resolved and a new production batch has been independently tested.
Reader-Reported Issues: When multiple readers report consistent issues that differ from our trial findings, we initiate a secondary review. We take the possibility that our original sample was atypical seriously. If a secondary review confirms different findings, we update the score and publish a note explaining the discrepancy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Questions About Our Process?
If you have questions about how we tested a specific product, want to report a discrepancy, or want to understand a score better, we want to hear from you.
Contact Our Editorial TeamWatch: Our Testing Process in Action
A behind-the-scenes look at how we purchase, run trials on, and score every product that appears on PetsBigStore.