Nobody can price your data without seeing it. A form that returns a dollar figure is guessing. This checker does something narrower and honest: it compares your answers with the rules each buyer program publishes, and shows that program's published payout range next to the result.
Each result names the published rule that decided it, so you can see exactly why. Rules are quoted from each program's own pages, as published, checked 7 October 2026.
Independent site. Some links are referral links: if your company signs with a buyer through them, the buyer may pay us a fee. You are not charged, and we never see your data. Disclosure.
Every question maps to something a buyer publishes or something that decides what you can offer. Here is the reason behind each one.
Buyers publish where they look first. micro1 prioritizes the US, then other Western markets. Mode counts full-time US office employees and names US-based teams as the strongest fit. Location also decides which privacy laws cover the records: an EU or UK team brings GDPR into scope, which changes how staff messages can be used.
Affects: micro1, ModeHeadcount is the simplest proxy a buyer has for how much connected work a company produces, and it is the most common reason for an unlikely result. micro1 lists 30+ (its referral posting says 30 to 200). Mode lists 20+, with lower minimums for accounting firms (10+) and law firms (6+). Mode's rule counts full-time office employees, so contractors and part-time staff may not count toward it.
Affects: micro1, ModeIndustry changes two things: the minimum headcount, through Mode's lower thresholds for accounting and law, and how much of the record is off limits. Law, accounting, healthcare administration and financial services raise client confidentiality, privilege, HIPAA or GLBA questions, so the checker adds a note for each of them.
Affects: Mode minimums, legal notesMode asks for several years of records the company owns; micro1 asks for mature operations. Years matter because buyers want to see how work played out: a project from kickoff to delivery, a client relationship across renewals. Count only years you still hold in systems you can export from, not records already deleted under a retention policy.
Affects: Mode, micro1The list is built from the systems buyers name. A tool on the list matters because the buyer already knows how to export and de-identify it. Several connected systems, such as chat plus tickets plus code, or email plus CRM plus accounting, show more of a workflow than any single one. The checker counts them and links the matching data-type guide.
Affects: micro1, notesmicro1 lists primarily English. Mode and Grepped publish no language rule. If your records are mostly in another language, fewer published programs match, and the checker marks micro1 as unlikely so you can focus on the others.
Affects: micro1This answer does not change any program's fit status, because no program publishes a rule on it. It changes what you can offer. Client files under NDA, privileged legal matters and patient records are often excluded entirely, and that can shrink the sellable part of your records more than any other factor. "Unsure" is a common and honest answer; the checker then tells you what to find out first. General information, not legal advice. Talk to your own lawyer before you sign.
Affects: what you can include, legal notesEvery rule below comes from the program's own page. Where a program publishes no rule, the checker says so instead of inventing one.
| Program | Published rule | How the checker reads it |
|---|---|---|
| micro1 | 30+ employees (referral posting: 30 to 200); mature operations, documented processes, modern software tools; primarily English; US prioritized, then other Western markets | Under 30 is unlikely. Over 200 is possible, since the two pages differ. Non-English or outside Western markets is unlikely. No listed tools ticked is possible. |
| Mode | 20+ full-time US office employees; accounting firms 10+; law firms 6+; several years of records the company owns; US-based teams strongest fit | Below the minimum for your industry is unlikely. A team outside the US is unlikely. One year of records is unlikely; two years is possible. |
| Grepped | Any vertical | No size, country or years rule is published, so the result is always possible fit. |
| Miro Advisory | Businesses; software companies (private codebases) | Shown for information. No size rule is published, and we have no referral link. |
| Direct to labs | Large or unique datasets | Shown for information. No published range or rule. |
Your answers meet every rule the program publishes. It is a reason to apply, not an acceptance. The buyer still reviews what your records contain.
One answer sits at the edge of a rule, or the program publishes no rule for it. Read the program's own page before you apply.
At least one answer misses a published rule. The reason line tells you which one, so you can decide whether it is worth asking anyway.
Two companies with the same headcount can hold records worth very different amounts. What moves the number is depth (how many years), structure (whether a ticket links to the thread and the fix), uniqueness, and how much must be removed for privacy. Practitioners also describe value tiers: raw data is the cheapest, evaluations built on it are worth roughly 10x raw, and full training environments reach 6 to 8 figures with heavy engineering.
The published ranges in your results are the ceiling and floor each program states, not an estimate for you. micro1 ties "$1M+" to "highly unique" data. The pricing guide explains what moves the number, and what data AI labs want covers which records buyers value most.
| Part of the result | What it shows | What to do with it |
|---|---|---|
| Status label | Likely fit, possible fit, unlikely, or for information | Shortlist likely and possible programs. Read the reason before ruling one out. |
| Published payout | The program's own wording, quoted, with the date we checked it | Treat it as the span the program states, not as your price. |
| Green line | A published rule your answers meet | Nothing to fix. Give the same facts in the program's application. |
| Amber line | An answer at the edge of a rule, or a rule the program does not publish | Confirm on the program's own page or in its application form. |
| Red line | A published rule your answers miss | Usually decisive. Apply only if you think the rule reads differently for you. |
| What it asks for | The records and privacy statements the program publishes | Check that you hold that kind of record, and that you own it. |
| Apply button | Our /go/ referral link to the program's application | Green when you fit or may fit; gray when your answers miss a rule. |
| Notes | Legal and data-type pointers triggered by your answers | Read them before you apply, not after. |
These companies are invented to show how the rules play out. The results are what the checker returns for these answers. No prices are shown because no program publishes one for a given company.
Grepped is the one program whose published rules do not rule this firm out. Its first job is question 7: consulting deliverables often sit under client NDAs, so it reads its client contracts before it applies anywhere.
On published rules, Mode is the match. In practice, privilege makes most matter files impossible to include, so what is left is the firm's own operations: intake procedures, templates, internal guides. It scopes that with its own counsel first.
Three programs to apply to and a fourth to read about. Applying to several is how this company gets more than one offer. Before sending anything, it scans its repositories for secrets and checks open-source licenses.
Fictional companies, for illustration only. Not real firms, not offers, and not a prediction of any buyer's decision.
Possible is the most common result, because Grepped publishes no minimums and many companies sit near a headcount or years line. Six steps turn it into a decision.
Tick them off as you go. Nothing is saved. General information, not legal advice. Talk to your own lawyer before you sign.
No, and no honest tool can. A buyer prices data after it sees a manifest and samples. This checker shows each program’s published payout range, verbatim, and whether your answers match that program’s published eligibility rules.
No. The checker is plain JavaScript that runs in your browser. Your answers are not sent to this site or to any buyer, nothing is stored, and no email is asked for.
Likely fit means your answers meet every rule the program publishes. Possible fit means at least one answer sits at the edge of a rule, or the program publishes no rule for it. Unlikely means at least one answer misses a published rule. None of them is an acceptance: only the buyer decides.
Read the rule that decided it first. If you entered 18 employees and the program lists 30+, applying is unlikely to help. If the reason is close, such as a few employees short or a borderline number of years, the program’s own page is the place to confirm.
Because they decide what can be included at all. Client files under NDA, privileged legal matters and patient records are usually excluded or need legal review first. General information, not legal advice. Talk to your own lawyer before you sign.
Enter full-time office staff. Mode’s published rule counts full-time US office employees, and micro1 lists employees. If a large part of your team is contractors, say so in the program’s application rather than adding them to the count.
Sometimes. micro1 prioritizes the US, then other Western markets, so EU, UK, Canadian and Australian teams show as a possible fit there. Mode’s rule counts US office employees. Grepped publishes no country rule. Check privacy law first: GDPR applies to EU and UK records.
Miro Advisory publishes indicative ranges but no referral program we use, and direct intake at labs such as Google pays no referral fee. We still show both so the comparison is complete. Results for them are marked “for information” because neither publishes a size or country rule the checker can test.