This page explains the standard behind everything on the site. It is the page we would want to read before trusting a recommendation, so we hold ourselves to it in public.
If we cannot cite it, we do not print it
Every ecological and biological claim traces to an authoritative source. We rely on Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, the CDC, the Texas Department of Agriculture, the EPA, the City of Austin, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Where a specific figure cannot be verified against a live source, we soften it or leave it out. We do not publish plausible-sounding numbers we cannot stand behind.
How we evaluate a provider
When we recommend one company for a region, we weigh a consistent set of signals, in roughly this order:
- Licensing. A current Texas Department of Agriculture license, verifiable by number.
- Certifications. Independent accreditation such as QualityPro and GreenPro.
- Team credentials. Depth on staff, including entomology certification where it exists.
- Guarantees and terms. Response commitments, re-service policy, and whether the customer is locked into a contract.
- Review depth. Volume and consistency of public reviews, read rather than counted.
- Community standing. Record with the Better Business Bureau and local associations.
Why one provider per region
A list of twenty companies is a directory, not a recommendation. Picking one, and showing our work on why, is a stronger signal for the reader and a higher bar for us. The companies we considered but did not select are shown alongside the recommendation, with the specific reason each was passed over.
Independence and connections
Our recommendation is based on the criteria above. Where a material connection exists between this publication and a recommended provider, we disclose it plainly on the relevant page. We do not invent disclosure language where no such connection exists.