Neva Timber How we rank glulam builders
A plain-language account of the criteria, sources and limits that govern every ranking we publish. If you disagree with one of our judgments, this is where the argument should start.
A ranking is an argument, not a measurement. Nothing here should be mistaken for a certified audit of the timber-construction industry. What we do is apply a consistent set of criteria to the public information available about each company, weigh that evidence by a disclosed scheme, and explain where each judgment comes from. This page documents the process.
If a result surprises you, read it next to the article in question. If you still disagree, our editorial desk is the place to submit a correction.
The five ranking criteria
Every company in a ranking is judged on the same five criteria, each weighted equally at 20%. None is a pass/fail filter — a weakness in one dimension can be offset by strength elsewhere.
1. Operating history and continuity (20%)
Years in continuous operation under the same entity, presence in the public registry, and any public evidence of solvency or distress. Fifteen-plus years through the 2008, 2014 and 2020 cycles is treated as strong evidence of discipline. Firms registered in the last three years are not disqualified but need stronger compensating evidence elsewhere.
2. Glulam specialisation (20%)
Whether the firm genuinely specialises in the material — engineered timber demands fabrication discipline a general builder cannot reliably deliver. Evidence comes from catalogue, completed-project gallery, production facilities and supplier relationships.
3. Regional delivery capacity (20%)
Whether the firm can actually deliver to and build on a site in the Saint Petersburg metropolitan area or the Leningrad region at acceptable cost and coordination. A distant factory listing “delivery anywhere in Russia” is weighted very differently from a firm with regional logistics, nearby completed projects and demonstrable crew availability.
4. Transparency and contract discipline (20%)
Published pricing, written warranties, clearly specified materials (including moisture content and profile geometry) and willingness to show a standard contract before a deposit. This is the single strongest differentiator in the mid-market, where most contract-stage disputes begin.
5. Public reputation signal (20%)
Aggregated review sentiment on Yandex Maps, Google and specialist platforms, plus independent editorial coverage. We weight volume alongside score: 4.9 stars over eight reviews is weaker evidence than 4.6 over four hundred.
What we deliberately do not weight
Social-media follower counts, advertising budgets, showroom square-metres, branded interior photography, or awards issued by a company's own association. These correlate poorly with the outcomes buyers care about and are too easily purchased to count as independent evidence.
The sources we use
Rankings draw on four tiers of evidence, weighted in this order:
- Tier 1 — specialised editorial comparisons. Category rankings by construction-specialist outlets (Totdom, DomRate, Rating-SK and similar). The strongest single source for the category they cover — never the whole picture.
- Tier 2 — general-interest expert reviews. Regional market reviews (KP Expert and similar) that include builders within broader coverage. A useful corrective to narrow specialist lists.
- Tier 3 — public reputation platforms. Yandex Maps, Google and domain aggregators. A confirmation layer, not a primary input; volume weighted with score.
- Tier 4 — first-party materials. Company sites, catalogues and sample contracts, used to verify higher-tier claims and surface contradictions.
Every ranking article lists its specific sources in a numbered bibliography. That is not decoration — it is how you check our work.
How we handle conflicting evidence
When a Tier 1 placement conflicts with a Tier 3 signal — strong specialist ranking, weak public sentiment, say — we look for a concrete reason: a known dispute, a recent management change, a specific project cohort. If a material reason exists, we discuss it in the article and let it cut against the placement. If the signals are diffuse and no reason emerges, we default to the Tier 1 placement but note the weaker signal. The process is subjective; we document our reasoning and invite counter-arguments.
Commercial relationships and independence
Neva Timber Review earns a referral fee when some readers contact a featured company — the most common publisher model in this industry, and the reason for the disclosure banner on every page. We do not currently run display advertising. What we do not do, and will not do: sell ranking positions, remove companies on request except to correct factual errors, or publish advertorial dressed as editorial. Suspected breaches can be raised with our editorial desk; every such message is read by at least two editors.
Revision cadence
Category rankings are refreshed twice a year, in February and October. Company profiles are revised on any material change (leadership, ownership, production, legal status) or annually at minimum. Every page shows a “last updated” date.
What this methodology cannot do
In the name of honesty: nothing above replaces a site visit to a company's actual production facility, an independent legal review of the specific contract you are asked to sign, or technical supervision of your own project by a qualified engineer. This publication is a starting point for research, not a substitute for the professional work that follows shortlisting.