The cheapest scenario is not the safest one
The ranking produced by the scenario comparison tool.
- Read as
- The scenario ranked first is the best choice, and the ones missing from the ranking are the worst.
- Actually
- The ranking orders scenarios by expected cost per redeemable coin and by nothing else; it does not account for how widely results scatter, and scenarios absent from it were excluded as unmeasurable on that scale rather than ranked last.
Each scenario runs through the package-value method at one version, and the results are ordered by cost per redeemable coin, ascending. That is a comparison of expectations.
Expectation is not the only axis that matters. Two scenarios with the same expected cost can differ greatly in how far individual results scatter, and the ranking is blind to that difference. The variance explorer addresses spread; this tool does not.
Scenarios whose expected balance does not survive the requirement are excluded from the ranking and reported separately with the reason. Sorting them last would imply they had been measured on the same scale as the others. They have not been — there is no cost per redeemable coin to rank them by.
The ranking is a pure function of the entered inputs. Nothing else reaches the order — no operator record, no commercial relationship, and no measurement of how the page was used.
A first place here means one scenario is expected to cost less per redeemable coin than the others entered, under the assumptions stated on the page. It is not a recommendation, and this site publishes no rankings of operators or offers.
The method behind this figure
Scenario comparison — scenario-comparison v1.0.1. Its formula, assumptions and limitations are published in full on the methodology page.
Related: Compare package scenarios, Package value calculator, Variance explorer, Methodology