How the Caliber Index is built.
A transparent, independently reproducible rating system for U.S. and global consulting, design, creative, PR, and exec search firms. Six public data sources. Five weighted subscores. Quarterly refresh. Firms cannot pay to improve their grade — methodology and source data are published in full.
Guiding Principles.
The Consultancy Caliber Index exists to answer a single question: which consulting firms deliver the outcomes their brands promise?
- Public records only. Every input sourced from PACER federal court filings, SEC enforcement records, state attorney general actions, BBB profiles, public client testimonials, or The Agency's proprietary client survey.
- Firms cannot pay. No rated firm has paid, can pay, or has been offered the opportunity to pay for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of their grade.
- Quarterly refresh. Grades update every 90 days; material changes timestamped.
- Subscore transparency. Every grade decomposes into five public subscores.
- Right of correction. Firms may submit documented corrections via published Appeals process.
The Six Data Sources.
The Index is constructed from six independent public-record sources. No single source can move a grade by more than 35%.
PACER Federal Court Filings
Securities, malpractice, FCPA, employment, and contract litigation involving rated firms. Coded by case type and disposition.
SEC Enforcement Records
SEC enforcement actions against consulting firms (audit-quality cases, advisory misconduct, securities-related matters). PCAOB audit-quality records included where relevant.
State Attorney General Records
State AG enforcement actions, consumer protection investigations, and consent orders affecting rated firms across all 50 states.
BBB Business Profile Data
Better Business Bureau profile data — letter grades, complaint volume, resolution rates — normalized to a 0-100 scale.
Public Client Testimonials
Cross-validated client outcomes from earnings calls, annual reports, public case studies, and conference presentations.
The Agency Client Survey
Anonymized opt-in survey of enterprise procurement and CMO professionals on engagement outcomes across rated firms. Methodology in Annual Report.
The Five Subscores.
Outcome Track Record
Documented client outcomes compared to engagement promises. Sourced from public-record client outcomes, earnings disclosures, and post-engagement performance data.
Pricing Honesty
Fixed-fee transparency, scope-creep history, and billing discipline. Includes pricing-related litigation and known billing disputes.
Conflict of Interest
Audit-consulting conflicts, simultaneous advisory of direct competitors, holding-company conflicts, and undisclosed material relationships.
Talent Quality
Partner credentials (MBB-tier MBA, post-firm career trajectory), recruitment selectivity, retention rates, and team continuity across engagements.
Methodology Rigor
Proprietary frameworks, research-backed approaches, IP investment, and academic credibility of the firm's published methodology.
Weighting & Scoring.
Why these weights? Outcome Track Record and Talent Quality are heaviest because they correlate most strongly with client value delivered. Conflict of Interest follows because it produces the largest documented client harm category. Methodology and Pricing complete the composite.