How the score
gets built.
Every number on Pheromone Scout is computed from data, not a gut read. Six documented signals, one figure from 0 to 10. Here's exactly what feeds it.
The Scout Score, explained.
The Scout Score runs from 0 to 10, but in practice the catalogue lives between 2.9 and 8.8, and the average sits at 6.2. A number in the sixes is a competent, unremarkable product. The low eights are the genuinely strong stuff. The highest score anywhere on the site is 8.8, which is the point: the scale keeps room above the best thing we've found.
There are no 9s, and no 10s. That's deliberate. A perfect score would claim the evidence for these products is firmer than it is, and pheromone fragrances are a contested category to begin with. We'd rather under-claim than oversell a number.
| COMPONENT | WEIGHT |
|---|---|
| Formulation, graded against the research | 25% |
| Brand track record | 20% |
| Quality tier, within format class | 20% |
| Listing transparency | 15% |
| Buyer reception, cleaned | 10% |
| Editorial override, rarely used | 10% |
When a product's page is missing one of these, its weight is spread across the rest, so a thin listing lowers confidence rather than forcing a zero.
The formula does the heavy lifting.
The biggest single input is what's actually in the bottle. Each formula is graded against our research library for which compounds it uses, at what disclosed strength, and how solid the evidence behind them is. A blend built on well-documented molecules earns more than one padded with filler that does nothing. That's a quarter of the score before anything else is counted.
Track record, and what the label will admit.
Brand reputation is a fifth of the score, and it carries the same for every product a brand makes. A label with years of validated formulas and a founder who shows up starts ahead of a drop-shipper with a stock photo. Transparency is another fifteen percent. Does the listing name its compounds and concentrations, or hide behind "proprietary blend" and a confident promise? The brands that show their work rank higher, because you can check it.
Where it sits in its class.
Everything is ranked inside its own format class, so a premium concentrate is judged against other premium concentrates and a budget spray against other budget sprays. Within a class, premium products are treated as a higher tier than the budget commodity options, and that tier is worth a fifth of the score. The last slice, ten percent, is buyer reception: vendor ratings and review sentiment. We weight it lightly and clean it hard, because on-site ratings run inflated, sometimes attach to the whole brand instead of the product, and use scales that don't even agree with each other.
Missing data doesn't sink a product.
Not every listing hands us everything. When a signal is missing, its weight is spread across the components we do have, so a sparse product page lowers our confidence without tanking the score on a technicality. A human editor can override the computed figure when something is plainly off, though that's rare and flagged when it happens. And because the whole system runs on data, the number moves when the data does. A reformulation, a fresh research note, a price that jumps, and it gets recomputed. Nothing is set once and left to rot.
How we make money.
Some links on Pheromone Scout are affiliate links. If you click through and buy, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. This is how independent review sites stay funded without charging readers or selling space to advertisers.
We link to the retailer with the best verified price, not the one with the highest commission rate. If the best price sits on a site with no affiliate programme, we still link there.
Pheromone Scout has never accepted money to feature a product, lift a score, or write a positive review. We never will. If that policy ever changes, we'll say so plainly at the top of every affected page.
One rubric. Every product.
No brand sees its score before it goes live. Every product runs the same rubric and the same weights, graded against the same research. All 299 of them. That's why the number is computed instead of eyeballed. A $9 androsterone vial and a $180 luxury extrait get identical math, and neither earns a thumb on the scale.
When a product is reformulated, repriced, or contradicted by something new in the research, the score is recomputed and the page updates. The aim isn't a flattering number. It's one you can trace back to a reason.