Methodology
Every Teardown is built to the same standard: assemble the evidence from primary sources, stress-test the claims, lay out both the bull and bear case, and cite all of it so you can check the work yourself.
How a study is researched
Each case study begins with a wide sweep of the public record — company filings and earnings releases, regulatory documents, primary data, reputable trade and financial press, and credible critics. We deliberately gather sources that disagree, so the finished study reflects the real debate around a company rather than a single narrative.
Findings are then put through an adversarial check: key claims and figures are re-verified against their original source, and anything that can’t be supported is cut or clearly labelled as an estimate. Only after that do we organize the evidence into the analytical frame each study shares — market, business model, competitive position, strategy and moats, financials, risks, and a peer comparison.
How sources are rated
Every source is tagged by tier, and we track the balance of viewpoints:
- Tier 1 — primary and authoritative: company filings, earnings calls, regulators, official statistics.
- Tier 2 — established financial and trade press, and recognized industry analysts.
- Tier 3 — additional context: commentary, secondary reporting, and informed opinion, used carefully.
For each study we also count how many sources are broadly supporting, critical, or neutraltoward the company, and check that the mix isn’t one-sided before publishing.
Citations and dating
Claims are cited inline, and every study links its full source list. Figures are reported “as of” a stated date, because the companies we cover move fast — a valuation, revenue run-rate, or market share is only meaningful with a timestamp attached.
Neutrality and independence
The Teardown is independent and not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by any company profiled. We don’t take positions on whether a stock is a buy or a company is “good” — each study lays out the strongest version of both the optimistic and the skeptical case and leaves the judgment to you. Nothing here is investment advice.
How studies are produced, and their limits
Studies are researched and assembled with the help of AI tooling and then reviewed before publishing. That lets us cover a lot of ground quickly, but it has limits: the public record is incomplete (especially for private companies), sources can be wrong, and figures can go stale. Where the evidence is thin or contested, we say so. If you spot an error, that’s exactly the kind of thing we want to fix.
Want a company covered? Read more about the project, or use the Request a case study button in the header to add one to the queue.