Methodology

How 136 launch monitors from 44 brands get scored, where the evidence comes from, and what we will not claim.

The honest starting point

We have not personally tested these units. There is no robot, no launch monitor of every brand, no controlled range session behind these numbers. Anyone claiming to have hands-on tested 136 devices spanning 1995 to 2026 is not telling you the truth.

What this archive does instead is synthesis: read everything public about a unit, record the same fields for every one of them, and score them on a consistent scale so a comparison actually means something. The value is not that we hit balls. It is that nobody else puts all of it in one table with the same yardstick.

The three scores

Every scored unit gets three numbers from 0 to 10. They are editorial judgments built from the evidence below, not lab measurements.

• ACC (accuracy): how closely the unit’s ball data tracks reality, weighted toward the metrics people actually buy on (carry and ball speed), with known weak spots such as estimated spin counted against it.
• FEAT (features): how much the unit does. Metric count, simulator support, video, onboard screen, app depth, and course libraries.
• EASE (ease of use): setup friction, space required, how much fussing it takes to get a good reading, and whether it needs a phone or stands on its own.

When we rank a shortlist, accuracy carries the most weight (50 percent), then features (30 percent), then ease (20 percent). A launch monitor that reports pleasant numbers which happen to be wrong is not a good launch monitor.

We do not score everything

Only 69 of the 136 units carry scores. The rest are catalogued with their specs, prices, and links, but left unscored because the public evidence is too thin to justify a number. A blank is more useful than a guess. Historical and commercial units in particular are often listed for completeness rather than scored for shopping.

Where the evidence comes from

Each entry is built from whichever of these exist for that unit:

• Manufacturer specifications and official product pages
• Official manuals, linked directly where we have them (47 units so far)
• Retailer listings, for real current pricing and availability
• Independent review coverage and video testing from people who did have the unit
• Owner discussion in forums and communities, for the failure modes reviews miss

Evidence confidence

Because the evidence is uneven, every unit carries a confidence label so you know how much weight to put on it:

• High: a full picture. Known strengths and weaknesses, all three scores, and enough independent coverage to be confident.
• Medium: solid specs and some real-world signal, but not enough to be emphatic.
• Low: thin or brand-new. Specs and availability, little or no independent testing. Treat these as a starting point, not a verdict.

A brand-new unit will almost always be Low at launch, no matter how good it turns out to be. That is a statement about the evidence, not the hardware.

Why there are no star ratings

You will not find aggregate user review stars here, and we deliberately do not publish review markup to search engines. Our scores are editorial judgments from one archive, not averaged ratings from thousands of buyers. Dressing them up as user reviews would misrepresent what they are.

Prices and true cost

Listed prices are the lowest current figure we have logged across the retailers we track, alongside original MSRP where it differs. Prices move and many premium brands enforce a minimum advertised price, so always confirm on the retailer’s page before buying.

We also track the subscription separately, because the sticker price is not the cost. A unit that is cheaper up front but gates simulator play behind a yearly fee can cost more over three years than a pricier one you own outright. Every entry records whether a subscription is required and what it runs, and the archive can filter to subscription-free units.

How units are classified

Each unit is tagged by sensor technology (radar, camera, hybrid, overhead camera, or other sensor), by what data it captures (full simulator, distance only, putting, or swing and club), and by tier, which is a price-and-purpose bracket rather than a quality ranking. A Budget unit is not a worse unit than a Pro one; it is a different purchase.

Independence

Some outbound links are affiliate links. No score, ranking, or piece of coverage is influenced by that, and no manufacturer pays for placement or previews coverage. Details on the disclosure page.

Corrections

This archive is wrong about something right now; that is the nature of tracking 40-plus brands. If you spot a bad price, a wrong spec, or a missing unit, tell us on the contact page and it gets fixed. Corrections are the fastest way this gets better.