METHODOLOGY
The foundation of every comparison.
A meaningful benchmark connects clear criteria, visible evidence and appropriate comparison. These three layers remain traceable.
Assessment
What is documented?
The score represents the calculated overall value of the applicable criteria.
Evidence
How well is it evidenced?
Evidence coverage describes the extent of the recorded evidence base.
Comparability
What is comparable?
Function, period and assessment rules define the frame of reference.
THE SCORING LOGIC
From statements to evidence.
The assessment scale has five levels. Missing information and non-applicable criteria are treated separately.
A relative segment position is not evidence of clinical outcomes.
Demonstrably not met
Available evidence shows that a requirement is not met.
Principle or self-report
A stated principle or limited account is available.
Documented process
Traceable documentation describes fulfillment.
Evidence of implementation
Appropriate evidence or samples support implementation.
Independent verification
Additional independent verification or audit.
Not applicable
Excluded from the applicable denominator.
Not evidenced
Unknown or missing evidence. Not automatically zero.
VISUAL EVIDENCE
How results become readable.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARABILITY
When comparisons are meaningful.
Data basis for the 2026 edition
“Top 250 worldwide” names the international selection of organizations in the 2026 edition. Rank positions apply within the eight peer groups. The results edition dated 29 September 2026 contains the already calculated criteria values and their associated evidence coverage. The final report and transmitted calculated values form the result basis. Profiles, rankings, charts and CSV exports use the same data record. The supplementary dataset supplies organization details and source IDs. The edition includes 30 study markets, eight peer groups, 216 numeric scores and 34 profiles designated NR.
Criteria, weights and applicability
The institutional framework describes seven dimensions and a scope of 60 criteria. The Atlas presents overall scores, evidence coverage and the conceptual dimension framework. Ranks are calculated by score within each peer group. The original calculation precision and existing ties are preserved.
Calculated criteria values & result transmission
The published overall scores correspond to the transmitted, already calculated criteria values for the 2026 edition. Evidence coverage is presented as a separate metric from the same result record. The Atlas publishes these values unchanged. The original report identifies UHNW Aesthetics, HPA Institute, CDDI Group, CheckMyTreatment, Trusted Ones, Aesthetic Treatment Academy and Master Class Aesthetics as portfolio companies; original sources are accessible in the publications section.