About HearWiki
HearWiki is an independent database of headphones, earbuds and in-ear monitors. It exists because comparing audio gear is unreasonably hard: specs live on manufacturer pages, verdicts live in dozens of separate reviews, and the two almost never sit on the same screen.
- Products
- 3,288
- Brands
- 294
- Source reviews
- 8,040
- HearWiki scored
- 2,228
How the HearWiki score works
The HearWiki score is a single 0–100 number per product, and it answers one question: should you buy this, today? It is not our own listening test - we don't claim to have heard 2,000 pairs of headphones. It is built from three parts, and every scored product page can show the exact arithmetic behind its number:
1. What the reviews say
A quality score on a 0–100 scale, judged from published reviews found by web search; the outlets it relied on are cited on the product page. The number is capped by how many reviews could be cited - one review can support at most 84, two at most 89 - and owner ratings and YouTube verdicts are blended in at a small, measured weight.
2. What the price predicts
Within each category, quality rises with price along a curve fitted on the whole catalogue. A product's value is how far it sits above or below that curve: a $40 earbud that reviews like a $120 one scores well, while a $2,000 headphone that reviews exactly like a $2,000 headphone scores its quality and no more. Products with thin evidence get less credit for beating the curve.
3. Whether you can still buy it new
Quality and value are averaged, then an age penalty comes off. Current models pay nothing. Older designs that shops demonstrably still stock new pay half a point per year, up to three. Models no longer stocked pay three points plus one per year, up to nine, because with every generation the odds go up that a current model does the same job better.
Most products rest on one to three cited reviews, and the count is shown on every page. Where nothing usable can be found the product stays Not yet scored - an honest gap is better than a number invented from nothing.
How much evidence sits behind a score
Every scored product says how many sources fed its number, and each of those sources is listed on the product page with a link to the original. Three outlets that broadly agree is a settled verdict. Two that disagree sharply is a lead worth reading up on. We would rather show you the count and let you judge than compress that into one figure you have to take on trust.
The pipeline also records a confidence for each judgement. It does not change the quality number, but it scales the value reward: a product one reviewer liked and nobody else has tested does not get full credit for looking cheap for its class.
Reading the verdict words
Each score maps to a plain-English verdict so you don't have to memorise what 78 means. The bands are deliberately wide - the difference between an 81 and an 84 is well inside the noise of aggregating other people's opinions.
| Score | Verdict | Means |
|---|---|---|
| 80+ | Outstanding | Class-leading; reviewers agree it's a reference point. |
| 72+ | Great | Strong all-rounder with only minor, specific compromises. |
| 62+ | Good | Solid choice - usually wins on price or one standout trait. |
| 50+ | Average | Works, but something better exists at the same money. |
| Below 50 | Weak | Reviewers found real problems. Buy with a reason. |
AI summary disclosure
The block labelled “The HearWiki take” on each product page, along with its pros and cons, is generated by a language model. It is worth being precise about what that does and does not mean:
- The model is given only the specs and the review material we have already collected for that specific product. It summarises and paraphrases that material - it is not asked what it “thinks” of the product.
- Summaries are always marked AI-condensed in the interface. We never present them as original hands-on testing.
- Language models make mistakes, and a paraphrase can lose a caveat the original reviewer put in carefully. Every product page links out to its sources - for anything that matters to your purchase, read them.
- AI output never influences the HearWiki score. Scores come from the numeric ratings only; the summary sits alongside as context.
Images & credits
Product photography belongs to the manufacturers, retailers and reviewers who produced it. Images are used for identification in an editorial catalog, shown at modest size, and credited beneath each product shot - the credit line names the source we obtained the image from, defaulting to the brand where the image comes from an official product page. We link to the original source wherever one exists.
If you hold the rights to an image here and would like it credited differently or removed, that request will be honoured - no argument, no delay.
Independence & how this is paid for
Rankings are the direct output of database queries over aggregated scores. No brand can pay for a position, and the guides re-order themselves automatically as new reviews land - including away from products we previously placed first.
Outbound retailer links are affiliate links: HearWiki is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, and the retailer pays a commission on qualifying purchases, at no cost to you. Affiliate revenue never touches the scores or the ordering of any list - the link comes after the verdict, never before it.
Privacy & analytics
HearWiki has no accounts, no ad trackers and no cookie banner - the only things stored in your browser are functional (region for currency display, your compare shortlist, your theme), and analytics runs on self-hosted, cookieless Umami that cannot recognise you across days. The full inventory lives on the Privacy policy page.