What our evidence can tell you
A screenshot, a growth percentage and a calculator estimate answer different questions. Our method keeps those differences visible: every claim is classified, matched to the strongest available source and dated, so you can evaluate a service on the right evidence.
At a glance
- Source hierarchy
- Platform → regulator → press → own data
- Historical examples
- Aura-managed accounts
- Comparisons
- Public sources with dates
The source hierarchy we follow
When a claim needs evidence, we work down this hierarchy until a source class can support it. A lower tier never overrides a higher one: a marketing screenshot does not outrank platform terms, and platform terms do not outrank a regulator.
| Priority | Source class | What we use it for | Examples we cite |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Platform terms and official help documentation | What a platform permits, how a feature works, current account and payout rules | OnlyFans Terms of Service; official platform support and help centers |
| 2 | Government and regulator sources | Legal, tax and advertising-claim standards | FTC guidance (earnings claims, endorsements), IRS guidance for self-employed and gig income, eCFR, legislation.gov.uk, Companies House |
| 3 | Major news outlets | Fact-checking a company claim, an industry event or a public statistic | Established outlets, linked at the exact point a fact depends on them |
| 4 | Aura’s own account records | Results from accounts we actually manage, always labeled Aura-reported | The anonymized records on /creator-results and the scale facts on /about |
How a claim is verified, step by step
Every checkable sentence in our guides passes through the same sequence before it publishes and again at each review.
| Step | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1 | Locate the claim: identify the exact sentence that depends on an external fact rather than on our own operating advice. |
| 2 | Classify it: platform rule, legal or tax statement, a competitor’s published offer, an Aura performance figure, or a general industry number. |
| 3 | Match the required source class for that claim type, as set out in our editorial policy. |
| 4 | Link the primary source at the point of use — the regulator’s or platform’s own page, never only a summary of it. |
| 5 | Record what the source establishes and the date it was reviewed on the page. |
| 6 | Re-check at the page’s next review date, or immediately when a reader reports a change through our corrections route. |
Read historical results with their limits
Our results page presents anonymized records from managed accounts. They establish the existence of the displayed history, not a promise, a controlled experiment or the full distribution of every creator’s outcome.
- Ask for the time period, source, calculation and cohort behind an average.
- An exceptional account does not establish the minimum or typical result.
- A platform leaderboard describes that leaderboard; it is not an independent audit of all agencies.
Keep research separate from recommendation
Competitor comparisons cite what the agency publicly says it offers and record the review date. We have not tested competitors’ private operations. Missing information is marked as unknown rather than treated as an absent service.
- Aura is the publisher and a commercial participant in agency comparisons.
- Exact fees, exit terms and service scope must be checked in a written proposal.
- We do not assign fabricated ratings or treat unsupported revenue claims as verified evidence.
What happens when a source changes
Platform rules, regulator pages and agency websites all change. When a scheduled re-check or a reader report shows that a cited source has moved, changed or disappeared, the claim does not survive on the old citation: we re-verify against the source’s current page, replace the link, or remove the claim in the next revision.
- Time-sensitive proof such as our Infloww rank is updated when the underlying leaderboard changes, and the page says when it was checked.
- If a source can no longer be confirmed, the claim is either re-anchored to a current official source or dropped.
- A revision that changes what a page says moves its review date; a re-check that changes nothing does not.
Review dates are a discipline, not decoration
A reviewed or updated date on our pages reflects a substantive check of the content against its sources — never a cosmetic refresh. Sitemaps carry the date of the last meaningful change for the same reason: the date is a signal a reader can act on, so we keep it honest on both the page and in the sitemap entry.
Worked example: one claim, verified end to end
Here is a real claim from our library with its full verification trail, so you can see the method working rather than trust a description of it.
| Field | Record |
|---|---|
| The claim | “The FTC advises that earnings claims should be supported rather than based on unusually successful examples.” — /learn/how-much-do-onlyfans-agencies-take |
| Claim type | Regulatory guidance on advertising and earnings claims |
| Required source class | Government regulator (priority 2 in the hierarchy above) |
| Source used | FTC business guidance on substantiating earnings claims — https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2026/06/back-those-earnings-claims-other-lessons-ftcs-labor-task-force-work |
| What the source establishes | The FTC’s position that unusually successful examples should not be presented as typical earnings claims — which is why our own results pages label Aura-reported averages instead of showcasing a best case. |
| Verification trail | The citation lives in the guide’s source list, recorded with the note “Why unusually successful examples should not be presented as typical”. The citation and its note were verified in the article record on 2026-10-21; readers can confirm the current FTC text at the link. The same standard appears in our results publication rules. |
Keep exploring
Editorial policy
Who writes and approves our content, and the sourcing rules it must meet.
Authors
The founder and editorial team accountable for the library.
About Aura
The business model, scale facts and what Aura does not do.
Disclaimer
Where general information ends and professional advice begins.
Open the OnlyFans calculator
A scenario tool, not a historical account result.
Sources and review dates
The source owner’s pages establish its published guidance or offer, not an independent verification of results. Terms can change; check the current source and your account agreement.
Regulator source (tier 2) behind the earnings-claims standard in /learn/how-much-do-onlyfans-agencies-take and our own results rules. Citation verified in the article record on 2026-10-21; confirm the current text at the link.
- IRS Gig Economy Tax CenterReviewed
Taxable gig-income reference cited in the same guide.
- OnlyFans Terms of ServiceReviewed
Tier-1 platform source for account, payment and content rules.
Tier-4 own-data source for every Aura-reported figure we publish.
Start with your account, not someone else’s results
Tell Aura about your audience, schedule and goals. We will review where support could help and discuss the scope before you make a commitment.
Apply