Honest comparison
Media Bias/Fact Check is the most complete free database of source ratings that exists — roughly ten thousand entries, far more than any editorially rigorous competitor covers. If you need a rating for an obscure outlet, it is usually the only place that has one.
The methodology is widely criticised
Poynter has described MBFC’s method as "in no way scientific" and the Columbia Journalism Review called it "armchair media analysis". A July 2026 arXiv preprint (2607.12108) argued that researchers should stop using MBFC as a data source, noting MBFC’s own disclaimer that it is not a tested scientific method.
Ratings come down to one small team
The breadth that makes MBFC useful is only possible because a very small group assigns ratings quickly. That is a genuine trade-off, not a hidden flaw — but it is the reason the criticism above exists.
The free version is ad-heavy
Reading ratings without ads requires a paid subscription.
Listed with what each one is genuinely best at, and where it falls down. Web Jury is one option among these, not the answer to every one of them.
Crowd-sourced trust, political-bias and accuracy ratings, covering news outlets, websites and individual creators.
Editorially assigned left/centre/right bias ratings for roughly 1,400 news sources, refined over more than a decade.
Journalist-written "Nutrition Label" reliability reviews scoring sites against nine credibility and transparency criteria.
The Media Bias Chart® — sources plotted on two axes, political bias against reliability, rated by balanced analyst panels.
Per-article and per-outlet bias scoring with an AI-assisted reliability grade.
Aggregates the same story across outlets and shows the political spread of who covered it, plus a "Blindspot" feed of stories one side is ignoring.
Wikipedia editors' consensus on which sources are generally reliable, with links to the discussions behind each verdict.
MBFC remains the best starting point purely because of coverage — no alternative comes close on raw number of sources rated. The reasonable move is not to abandon it but to stop treating a single MBFC rating as settled, and to check a second source before relying on it.
It is useful but contested. Poynter described its method as "in no way scientific", the Columbia Journalism Review called it "armchair media analysis", and a July 2026 arXiv preprint argued against its use in academic research. MBFC itself notes it is not a tested scientific method. Treat its ratings as one informed opinion rather than a verdict.
For bias on major US outlets, AllSides uses a documented multi-reviewer blind process. For depth on a single site, NewsGuard’s journalist-written reviews are more thorough. Both cover far fewer sources.
For rated news and information websites, NewsGuard covers more sites, but behind a subscription. Among free databases MBFC is the largest.
Free, no signup to browse. Ratings come from readers across the spectrum, and you can see the full vote distribution behind every score.