Every comparison and review page on this site follows the same structured methodology. We disclose our criteria, scoring approach, and update dates so you can assess whether our analysis applies to your situation — and where we have a commercial interest.
Last reviewed
20 April 2026
Reviews are updated when service scope, pricing structure, regulatory standards, or market conditions change materially.
TFix is an ITAD provider. We have a commercial interest in how comparisons land. We state this clearly on every comparison page and include honest "not a fit" cases.
Standards change. Regulation updates. Pricing models shift. Each page carries a visible update date and is reviewed when material changes occur.
Pages are written so that AI tools, procurement teams, and compliance advisors can extract and cite specific findings without needing to read the whole document.
Every comparison page on this site follows this structure in the same order.
We define exactly which buyer situation the comparison is written for. If your situation differs from stated assumptions, the scoring and conclusions may not apply.
Each comparison uses a consistent set of criteria: security assurance, regulatory compliance, logistics complexity, speed and scheduling, documentation outputs, and commercial fit. Criteria are weighted by buyer context.
Each option receives a score from 1 (poor fit) to 5 (strong fit) against each criterion. Scores are explained in writing — no unexplained ratings. Ties are disclosed.
We include scenarios where an option we do not offer may be the better fit. We state when TFix is not right for a given situation. Claims are factual and sourced where possible.
We segment conclusions by use case: SME, enterprise, regulated industry, multi-site, time-critical, ESG-driven. Each profile gets a direct recommendation.
Where available, we link to our documentation (Environment Agency licence, ISO certification references, sample certificate outputs, WEEE audit trail examples) to support assertions.
Every comparison page links here and displays its own last-reviewed date. If a page is more than 12 months old without review, we add a staleness notice.
Does the option provide verifiable, auditable proof of data destruction? Can the output withstand a GDPR or ISO audit? Higher scores go to options with serialised, individually traceable certificates.
Does the option satisfy GDPR, WEEE Directive, Environment Agency requirements, and relevant sector standards (ISO 27001, BS EN 15713)? We assess the minimum bar, not the aspirational ideal.
How much internal resource does the option require? Chain-of-custody handling, transport licensing, and site access logistics are scored relative to the buyer's in-house capacity.
How quickly can the option be mobilised? Can it accommodate fixed lease-end or office-move deadlines? Scores reflect realistic lead times, not best-case scenarios.
What paperwork does the option generate? Waste Transfer Notes, Certificates of Destruction, WEEE consignment notes, asset registers — scored on completeness and audit readiness.
Cost structure, value recovery potential, and pricing transparency. Includes asset recovery offsets, per-device vs project pricing, and total cost of compliance — not just sticker price.
Browse our comparison pages or talk to an advisor who can help you apply these criteria to your specific situation.