Version 1.1.0 · Updated June 2026
Every ranking on Archery Care comes out of CareScore™— a scoring model with nothing hidden. The formula, the exact weights, the data rules, the changelog: it’s all on this page. Check our math anytime. If you cite a CareScoresomewhere, this page is the source of truth you’re pointing at.
The model in one paragraph
Each category gets a set of measurable specs. We reduce every spec to a single number, then normalise it onto a 0–100 scale against fixed per-category bounds — respecting whether higher or lower is better, because a 5.25″ brace height and a $2,149 price tag are both “big” in very different ways. Each normalised value gets multiplied by a published weight. Average the weighted values, and that’s the score. 0 to 100, higher is better. That’s the whole machine.
The formula
For a numeric spec with raw value x, bounds min and max(the ratio is clamped to the 0–1 range, so values outside the bounds score 0 or 100):
- Higher-is-better: quality = clamp₀₋₁((x − min) ÷ (max − min)) × 100
- Lower-is-better: quality = 100 − clamp₀₋₁((x − min) ÷ (max − min)) × 100
- Ranges (e.g. draw-weight 55–80 lb) are reduced to a scalar first — the midpoint, span, or upper bound, as published per spec below.
- Categorical specs (e.g. limb fitting: ILF vs proprietary) map to a published 0–100 quality value per option.
The overall CareScore is the weight-normalised average: Σ(qualityᵢ × weightᵢ) ÷ Σ(weightᵢ), computed over the specs that have data.
Three rules that keep the score honest
- Missing data is never treated as zero.If a manufacturer doesn’t publish a spec, we store it as unknown, exclude it, and renormalise the remaining weights — we never guess. The honest consequence: a score built on fewer specs leans harder on the specs that remain, which is why the data note under each product’s table tells you exactly what was unavailable.
- Reference-only specs are excluded.Some published figures aren’t comparable across designs (e.g. Ravin’s geared “draw force” vs a conventional peak draw weight). These are shown in tables but never scored.
- Commissions never touch the math. Archery Care runs no affiliate links or ads today, and if that ever changes the score will still be computed from specs by the formula above — there is no editorial override, no sponsored placement, and no manual adjustment. Ever.
Avatar re-weighting (the “Best for…” lists)
A beginner and a Western elk hunter shouldn’t use the same weights. So they don’t. Our buyer-specific lists take the same normalised data and re-weight it for one kind of archer — the beginner list, for instance, cares far more about forgiveness and price than raw speed, because a twitchy 357 fps bow helps nobody who’s still building an anchor. The weights for each avatar are published on its list page. The underlying data never changes.
The exact weights, by category
These tables are rendered directly from the live scoring configuration — they cannot drift from what the site actually computes. Direction shows whether a higher or lower raw value scores better; bounds are the normalisation range.
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| IBO Speed | Higher is better | 330–360fps | 16 (16.8%) |
| Brace Height | Higher is better | 5–7" | 15 (15.8%) |
| Mass Weight | Lower is better | 3.8–4.8lb | 14 (14.7%) |
| Street Price | Lower is better | 1200–2200 | 16 (16.8%) |
| Axle-to-Axle | Higher is better | 30–34" | 10 (10.5%) |
| Let-Off | Higher is better | 80–90% | 8 (8.4%) |
| Draw Weight | Higher is better | 60–80lb (scored on upper bound) | 8 (8.4%) |
| Draw Length Range | Higher is better | 3–6" (scored on span) | 8 (8.4%) |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price (RTH package) | Lower is better | 180–680 | 18 (19.6%) |
| Draw Weight Range | Higher is better | 10–70lb (scored on span) | 14 (15.2%) |
| Draw Length Range | Higher is better | 6–17" (scored on span) | 14 (15.2%) |
| IBO Speed | Higher is better | 295–330fps | 12 (13.0%) |
| Brace Height | Higher is better | 6–7" | 12 (13.0%) |
| Mass Weight | Lower is better | 3–4.2lb | 10 (10.9%) |
| Let-Off | Higher is better | 75–85% | 6 (6.5%) |
| Axle-to-Axle | Higher is better | 29–33" | 6 (6.5%) |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Competitive Ceiling | Higher is better | elite=100, advanced=82, intermediate=64, beginner=46 | 18 (20.5%) |
| Price | Lower is better | 140–1000 | 18 (20.5%) |
| Limb Fitting | Higher is better | ILF=100, Formula=82, proprietary=50 | 16 (18.2%) |
| Riser Material | Higher is better | carbon=100, aluminum=85, wood=55 | 14 (15.9%) |
| Tuning Adjustability | Higher is better | full=100, partial=70, none=40 | 12 (13.6%) |
| Riser Mass | Higher is better | 1100–1400g | 10 (11.4%) |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Speed | Higher is better | 360–520fps | 18 (18.0%) |
| Kinetic Energy | Higher is better | 140–225ft-lb | 16 (16.0%) |
| Price | Lower is better | 550–3100 | 18 (18.0%) |
| Cocked Width | Lower is better | 3.5–9.5" | 12 (12.0%) |
| Cocking System | Higher is better | integrated=100, crank=85, manual=60 | 12 (12.0%) |
| Overall Length | Lower is better | 24–34" | 8 (8.0%) |
| Mass Weight | Lower is better | 7–8.5lb | 8 (8.0%) |
| Power Stroke | Higher is better | 12–16" | 8 (8.0%) |
| Draw Weightreference only | — | — | not scored |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Straightness Tolerance | Lower is better | 0.001–0.006" | 24 (27.9%) |
| Price / Dozen | Lower is better | 110–500 | 18 (20.9%) |
| Shaft Diameter | Lower is better | 0.157–0.246" | 12 (14.0%) |
| Weight Tolerance | Lower is better | 0.5–2gr | 12 (14.0%) |
| Spine Options | Higher is better | 3–14 | 10 (11.6%) |
| Material | Higher is better | carbon-aluminum=92, carbon=85, aluminum=72 | 10 (11.6%) |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Cutting Diameter | Higher is better | 1–2.25" | 18 (23.7%) |
| Price (3 heads) | Lower is better | 35–145 | 16 (21.1%) |
| Blade Thickness | Higher is better | 0.03–0.065" | 14 (18.4%) |
| Ferrule Material | Higher is better | titanium=100, steel=70, aluminum=35 | 12 (15.8%) |
| Crossbow Rated | Higher is better | yes=100, no=40 | 8 (10.5%) |
| Grain Options | Higher is better | 1–8 | 8 (10.5%) |
| Head Typereference only | — | fixed=0, mechanical=0, hybrid=0 | not scored |
| Blade Countreference only | — | 2–4 | not scored |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price | Lower is better | 70–310 | 20 (27.0%) |
| Micro-Adjust | Higher is better | yes=100, no=40 | 16 (21.6%) |
| Rest Type | Higher is better | limb-driven-dropaway=90, cable-driven-dropaway=88, full-containment=55, launcher=45 | 14 (18.9%) |
| Containment | Higher is better | full=100, partial=55, none=25 | 14 (18.9%) |
| Mounting | Higher is better | both=100, integrate-dovetail=80, berger-bolt=65 | 10 (13.5%) |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price | Lower is better | 180–660 | 18 (27.3%) |
| Axis Adjustment | Higher is better | first-second-third=100, second-only=45, none=15 | 18 (27.3%) |
| Mounting | Higher is better | both=100, dovetail=80, fixed-plate=50 | 12 (18.2%) |
| Adjustment Precision | Higher is better | micro=100, standard=45 | 10 (15.2%) |
| Sight Light Included | Higher is better | yes=100, no=30 | 8 (12.1%) |
| Pin Countreference only | — | 1–7 | not scored |
| Pin Sizereference only | — | 0.01–0.029" | not scored |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price | Lower is better | 90–330 | 20 (29.4%) |
| Trigger Adjustability | Higher is better | full=100, partial=55, none=20 | 26 (38.2%) |
| Jaw / Hook | Higher is better | hook=100, jaw-less=85, single-caliper=60, dual-caliper=45 | 16 (23.5%) |
| Connection | Higher is better | both=100, wrist-strap=70, handheld=70 | 6 (8.8%) |
| Release Stylereference only | — | index=0, thumb=0, hinge=0, tension=0 | not scored |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price | Lower is better | 35–215 | 20 (33.3%) |
| Integrated Damping | Higher is better | yes=100, no=30 | 18 (30.0%) |
| Bar Material | Higher is better | carbon=100, hybrid=70, aluminum=45, polymer=30 | 14 (23.3%) |
| Length | Higher is better | 6–15" | 8 (13.3%) |
| Weightreference only | — | 3–16oz | not scored |
| Adjustable End Weightsreference only | — | yes=100, no=0 | not scored |
| Spec | Direction | Normalisation | Weight (share) |
|---|
| Street Price | Lower is better | 180–850 | 20 (28.6%) |
| Construction | Higher is better | hybrid-reflex-deflex=95, takedown-laminated=80, one-piece-laminated=65, selfbow=50 | 16 (22.9%) |
| Bow Length | Higher is better | 58–70" | 10 (14.3%) |
| Lightest Draw Offered | Lower is better | 20–45lb | 10 (14.3%) |
| Heaviest Draw Offered | Higher is better | 50–70lb | 8 (11.4%) |
| Mass Weight | Lower is better | 1–1.5lb | 6 (8.6%) |
| Grip Stylereference only | — | locator=0, straight=0, pistol=0 | not scored |
Data sourcing
Manufacturer-published specs, cross-checked against authorised retailers. That’s the input — 86 products across 11categories as of June 2026. Some figures are standardised marketing ratings (compound IBO speed is the classic case); we score those because they’re the only like-for-like number that exists, and we flag them wherever they appear. Each product’s data caveats sit right under its spec table. One thing we won’t do: pretend spec analysis is lab testing. Chronograph, decibel and group-testing data are on the roadmap — until that bench exists, the How We Test page says so plainly.
Changelog
- v1.1.0 — June 11, 2026. Category expansion: added broadheads, arrow rests, bow sights, release aids, stabilizers, longbows and a dedicated budget compound bow category — now 11 categories, 86 products, 54 ranked lists and 294 head-to-head comparisons. Sub-$700 ready-to-hunt compounds are scored in their own category with tier-appropriate bounds rather than merged into the flagship compound scale — a $450 package bow and a $2,100 carbon flagship answer different questions, and one linear price band can’t score both honestly. All v1.0.0 weights and bounds are unchanged; existing CareScores are unaffected. New in the engine: specialist lists can declare hard eligibility filters (e.g. fixed-blade-only, crossbow-rated-only, under-$500) alongside their published weights.
- v1.0.0 — June 9, 2026. Initial public release: 4 categories, 32 products, 23 ranked lists, 112 head-to-head comparisons. Spec weights and bounds as published at release.
Material changes to weights, bounds or formula will increment this version and be recorded here, so historical citations of a CareScore remain auditable.