Every dossier and role-comparison page scores a ship 1–100 for one role. The figure is an editorial verdict against a fixed set of role-weighted factors — it is not computed from a published equation. It answers one question: how good is this hull at this job once it is fully engineered, measured against every other ship doing the same job?
Each score is set against the whole field in that role, not in a vacuum.
Judged at the ship's fully-built ceiling, not its stock loadout.
The raw stats behind every verdict are verified against EDCD, INARA, Coriolis and EDSY.
A single 1–100 suitability rating per ship, per role — not stars, not a tier letter. Higher is a better fit for that job. In practice the field spans roughly 40 to 98: a stock starter at one end, a fully-engineered apex at the other.
Every dossier and comparison table renders the score the same way — the number beside a linear bar. The figure is the verdict for one ship; the bar lets you eyeball where it sits on the whole ladder at a glance.
Bars on a ladder — Corvette (98), Viper Mk IV (66), Sidewinder Mk I (40), all combat.
The ceiling of the role; class-leading once engineered. Few ships reach it.
A genuinely excellent platform with at most one clear weakness.
A solid working choice, often a budget or transitional pick.
Does the job at the bottom of the field; you will outgrow it.
A starter or a novelty for the role — useful for learning, not for earning.
Five stars cannot separate twenty-eight combat hulls. A 1–100 scale can hold a whole role on one ladder and show the real distance between, say, an 88 and a 90 — close rivals — versus a 90 and a 40.
Two rules govern every score on this site. Read them once and every dial makes sense: the rating is roster-relative and judged at engineered state.
A ship is scored against every other ship in the same role, not against an absolute ideal. The role's best hull anchors the top of the scale; everything else is placed relative to it. Move a ship to a different role and its number changes, because the field and the factor weights change.
The score reflects what the hull becomes fully engineered — A-rated cores, the role's blueprint tour, experimental effects — not its showroom stats. A hull that is mediocre stock but transforms with engineering is rated for the ship you will actually fly.
Class is not a handicap baked into the number. A small ship and a large ship on the same score are not equal in absolute power — the small one is simply excellent for its class. The Kestrel Mk II at 85 is the best small combat ship; the Anaconda at 88 is a heavy. Both are superb for what they are, but the Anaconda out-guns and out-tanks the Kestrel outright. Always compare within a pad class first.
Correct. Each is rated against its own role's whole roster. Same score means “equally excellent for its class”, not “equally powerful in a fight”. The pad-class grouping in every table exists precisely so you compare like with like before you compare across classes.
Only role-effectiveness moves the rating. Credit cost, rebuy and rank gates are listed alongside as cost, not folded into the number — a cheap 80 and an expensive 80 are equally good at the job; the cheap one is simply easier to own and fly boldly.
The score is a judgment, not a derived formula — but it is not opaque. Each role defines an ordered list of factors; a ship is weighed factor-by-factor against the field, and the verdict is expressed as one number. To make that verdict legible, each factor carries an explicit weight (its share of 100, in priority order), and every dossier now shows a “Why This Rating” scorecard whose weighted points sum to the headline number. The weights are an editorial decomposition of the priority order — the first factor drives the ceiling, the last is a tiebreaker — not an in-game equation.
Open any ship dossier and read § Why This Rating: the role's factors, each scored earned / weight with a bar, totalling the ship's 1–100 rating. It is the “show-your-work” behind the verdict — the same factors and weights described in section 04 below, applied to one hull.
Each role has its own ordered factor list (section 04). Combat leads with hardpoints; trading with cargo; exploration with jump range. The leading factor is the dominant driver of the score.
Assess each factor at the hull's fully-built state — A-rated, role blueprint tour, experimentals — not stock.
Place the ship relative to every other hull in the role. The role's best anchors the top; the weakest anchors the floor.
The factor judgments collapse into a single 1–100 figure, then a one-line verdict and pros/cons explain it.
Leads or ties the role's top factor (max hardpoints, biggest hold, longest jump), with no fatal weakness in the supporting factors. The hull defines the ceiling others are measured against.
Trails the field on the top factor and carries a clear weakness elsewhere. Often a starter hull — flyable for the role, but bettered by almost anything you can afford next.
The floor is roster-relative too. Combat — a huge, deep field — bottoms out at 40 (Sidewinder). Passenger is the tightest field in the series: every hull is a genuinely good liner, so its floor sits at 80 (Dolphin), not 40.
The factors below are taken verbatim from each role's “How These Ships Are Scored” section. Listed in priority order — the first item is the dominant driver; the last is a tiebreaker. Open a role's dossier for the full ladder.
Six factors, in roughly this order of importance.
A separate discipline from human combat — shields barely matter; heat and hull do.
An explorer lives or dies on its FSD.
Measured on effective payday, not raw tonnage.
Rated for balance across roles, not peak in any one. The cargo column is a capacity proxy, not the verdict.
The tightest field in the series — the floor sits at 80, not 40.
Capacity dominates, but pad class governs which markets you can reach.
Real scores from the dossiers, walked factor-by-factor. For each role, a high example and a low or illustrative one — so you can see exactly what separates a ceiling from a floor.
| Ship | Class | Hardpoints | Why this score | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Corvette | Large | 2×H 1×L 2×M 2×S | Two huge mounts — a count nothing else fields; 666 armour; class-8 distributor feeds it all; capital agility holds guns on targetRear Admiral rank gate; 22M rebuy | 98 |
| Viper Mk IV | Small | 2×M 2×S | Tanky for a small; honest budget starter; no rank gateTiny hardpoints; PD3 chokes under load; thin shield; slow | 66 |
| Sidewinder Mk I | Small | 2×S | Free; where everyone startsTwo small mounts; PD1; negligible shield/armour — the role floor | 40 |
The Corvette wins on the top factor (hardpoints) and carries no fatal weakness — that is a 98. The Viper trails on every factor but is flyable — a mid-60s budget pick. The Sidewinder leads on nothing — the 40 floor.
| Ship | Class | Why this score | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandalay | Medium | Class-leading engineered jump range; runs cool; great canopy; room for AFMU/SRV/DSSNewer hull, premium price | 96 |
| Asp Explorer | Medium | The classic benchmark — superb canopy, fine range, cheap, ample internalsBettered on range and heat by the modern hulls above it | 72 |
| Adder | Small | Cheap, light, scoops; a viable first explorerShort range, small tank, cramped internals — the exploration floor | 60 |
Range leads the exploration rubric, so the Mandalay's engineered-range lead anchors the 96. The beloved Asp still scores a respectable 72 — capable, but out-ranged by the modern ceiling. The Adder is the floor at 60.
| Ship | Class | Why this score | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Panther Clipper Mk II | Large | The biggest hold in the game — capacity leads the trading rubric; enough shield to survive a roundSlow; large-pad only, locked out of outposts | 98 |
| Type-8 | Medium | Best medium-pad capacity — reaches outposts the larges cannotCarries less than the large freighters by design | 82 |
| Hauler | Small | Cheap, long-ranged for its size; a fine first traderTiny hold; trivial shield — the trading floor | 58 |
Cargo dominates trading, so the Panther's record hold anchors the 98. Note the Type-8 at 82 is not “worse” than a large at 95 — it carries less but reaches markets the large never can. The Hauler is the 58 floor.
| Ship | Class | Why this score | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-11 Prospector | Large | The only hull designed to mine — exclusive tools, perfect slot layout, top effective ore capacityA mining specialist; little else | 95 |
| Imperial Cutter | Large | Holds more raw cargo than the Type-11; superb shieldNot laid out for mining; Imperial rank gate | 92 |
| Keelback | Medium | Cheapest defended miner; SLF bay for protectionSmall effective hold — the mining floor | 68 |
A clean demonstration of the rubric: the Cutter holds more raw cargo, but mining is scored on effective ore capacity and tool/slot fit — so the purpose-built Type-11 takes the 95 ceiling, with the Cutter just behind at 92.
Every role page carries a full ladder and per-class breakdowns. Read them in this order: pick your pad class first, then compare scores within it, then decide whether you need pad reach or raw capability across classes.
If two ships are within two or three points, treat them as equals on capability and choose on cost, rank gate, pad access or how the ship feels to fly. The score separates tiers, not near-rivals.
The scores cited here are this manual's own role-comparison and dossier verdicts — the source of truth for the site's ratings. The raw ship stats behind those verdicts are verified against the references below.
