Lumis publishes every weight, every source, every threshold. Not out of goodwill — out of discipline. A methodology you can't reproduce isn't a benchmark, it's an opinion. Transparency is our least copyable moat.
The official score is the arithmetic mean of D1 to D7, each weighted 1/7. D8 (observable paid footprint) is reported outside the average — it's inferred, not directly measurable, so displayed as an indicator rather than a judgment.
Without published perimeter, every benchmark is contestable. For each anchor, Lumis publishes a Scope Card stating exactly what's included, what's not, on which date, with which methodology version. The PDF the visitor receives also contains its own Scope Card for symmetric comparison.
| Benchmarked URL | https://www.migros.ch |
| Level | Corporate retail group (FR / DE / IT) |
| Geographic perimeter | Swiss properties only |
| Included | migros.ch landing, migros.ch/fr, migros.ch/de, migros.ch/it, main sitemap, blog |
| Excluded | Migros Online, Galaxus / Digitec (separately scored), regional cooperatives (Geneva, Vaud, etc.), M-Industrie sites, mobile apps |
| Why this URL | Most representative entry point a competing Swiss retailer would compare against for its own score |
| Crawl date | Weekly on Monday · JSON audit archived |
| Audit trail | crawl-migros-2026-05-13T08:34:12Z.json · reproducible · available on request |
A methodology that isn't calibrated and doesn't archive its raw inputs is not defensible. Lumis does both.
Full crawl of the 15 anchors in private beta. We look at the score distribution. If 13 out of 15 cluster in Tier S 90+, the scale is broken — we don't publish a benchmark where everyone's S. If everything clusters in B 60-74, same.
The S / A / B / C thresholds are tuned on the real sample, not set arbitrarily. That's two days of delta before public ship, and it's non-negotiable for defensibility.
Every produced score generates a dated, archived JSON artifact containing the raw inputs (Lighthouse JSON, parsed sitemap, hreflang count, Trustpilot snapshots, raw LLM responses for D5).
The Scope Card links this artifact. That's what makes the methodology defensible against contestation: here's exactly what we measured, here's the date, here's the code. Reproduce it if you want. Without that, you're defending numbers on your word alone.
The methodology is versioned like code. Each major evolution (weight change, dimension addition, anchor removal) bumps the version. Old versions remain accessible. No historical score change is silent.
Eight dimensions, seven scored at equal 14.29 % each. D8 outside the average. Calibration round on 15 anchors. D5 sub-scores at equal 25 % each pending six months of empirical data.
After 90 days of real comparisons, recalibration of D1-D7 weights if one dimension correlates more strongly with measured SME conversions. Recalibration of D5 sub-scores. Mandatory public justification.
Addition of 2-3 anchors per segment (Big 4 accounting = KPMG + PwC + Deloitte; pharma = Roche + Novartis + Lonza). Enables sub-sector comparison. Public methodology for additions.
No black box. No secret algorithm. No arbitrary thresholds. A defensible method is Lumis's promise to its clients — and the moat global tools cannot copy without publishing their own.
Request early access →