Free MVP validation tool
Rate a market-information source on reliability, recency, incentives, and relevance to get a weighted credibility score and how much to trust it.
Your entries remain in this browser session and are not sent to MVPHub.
Your inputs
Score honestly — a report from the company selling the solution should rate low on incentive independence even if it is well written.
Your calculated result
Planning score
Reliability (30%) and recency plus incentive independence (25% each) carry the most weight, with relevance to your specific decision at 20% — reflecting that a technically sound but irrelevant source is still low value.
You enter the source’s age in months and the tool converts it to a 1–5 recency score, with full marks under 6 months and a steady decline past 36 months, since markets shift.
The weighted score maps to a concrete instruction — cite directly, use as supporting evidence, treat as a hypothesis, or exclude — so the score changes what you actually do with the source.
A source funded or published by a party with a stake in the conclusion (a vendor report, a company blog promoting its own category) can be accurate, but its selection of facts is not neutral — weighting this dimension keeps that bias visible.
You enter the source age in months; the tool assigns 5 points under 6 months, 4 under 12, 3 under 24, 2 under 36, and 1 beyond that — a simple, transparent decay rather than a hidden formula.
Yes, as a hypothesis generator or supporting context — the tool tells you not to rely on it alone, not to discard it entirely, unless the score is very low.
Evaluate the sources that materially inform a validation decision memo or investment case — not every article you skim during general research.
The source directly addresses your specific market, customer segment, or product category — a general industry trend report scores lower on relevance than a study of your exact niche.
| Capability | MVPHub | CRAAP Test worksheet (library science) | ChatGPT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted, numeric credibility score | ✓ | × | × |
| Automatic recency decay calculation | ✓ | × | × |
| Concrete usage recommendation by score band | ✓ | × | — |
| General-purpose critical reading checklist | × | ✓ | ✓ |
MVPHub converts your ratings into a weighted numeric score with a specific usage recommendation. The CRAAP Test is a well-known manual checklist without scoring, and ChatGPT can discuss source quality but will not apply a consistent formula.
