Disclaimer

The rankings on this site are only worth something if you know exactly what they are — and who made them.

Who built this — and yes, he’s on the list

TutorRank was built and is operated by Volak S., a working math tutor. He also appears in these rankings, currently at or near the top of several of them. He chose the scoring rules — the weights, the floors, the formula — and those rules affect where he places. You should factor that in when you read the table, and we’d rather tell you than have you find out.

Every one of those rules is published in full on the methodology page. Reasonable people would choose different numbers and get a different order. What we can promise is that the rules are stated openly and applied identically to everyone — including the person who wrote them.

The testimonials are real, and you can check every one

Nothing here is written, paraphrased, or invented by us. Every scored data point comes from a testimonial published on a tutor’s own public Wyzant or Preply profile, by an actual student or parent. A testimonial only counts when it states a concrete before → after result — “went from a 72 to a 92,” “a C to an A.”

Each tutor’s page reproduces every testimonial verbatim, next to the grade change we read out of it and whether it scored or was excluded. So you never have to take our word for a ranking — click the tutor, read the actual reviews, and audit the arithmetic yourself.

Where these rankings are a bad guide

The score measures one narrow thing: documented grade improvements that students happened to write down with numbers. That makes it a weak or useless signal in several common cases.

• Thin subjects. Statistics, Trigonometry, and the middle-school categories rest on a handful of data points. Ranking #1 in a subject with two pieces of evidence means very little — if you need a statistics tutor, treat that table as a starting list, not a verdict.
• Subjects we don’t cover at all. Physics, chemistry, computer science, and everything else outside math are not ranked here, in any form. If that’s what you need, this site cannot help you and shouldn’t pretend to.
• Excellent tutors whose students didn’t use numbers. Most reviews say “she’s wonderful” and stop there. Those tutors score zero here and land in the scraped but unproven list. That is a fact about how their students write reviews — not a judgment about how they teach.
• Small samples generally. A tutor with four data points and one with two are not meaningfully separated by any honest statistic. Treat nearby ranks as ties.

Use this as one input: a way to surface tutors whose results were concrete enough that a student bothered to write the number down. It is not a measure of teaching quality, and it is not a substitute for talking to the tutor.

These are, in practice, Wyzant rankings

This is the single biggest limitation of the site, and it took reading 11,058 testimonials to see it clearly. The two platforms have completely different review cultures:

Wyzant’s reviews routinely say “she went from a C to an A.” Preply’s reviews overwhelmingly say “great teacher, very patient” — warm, and completely unscoreable by our method. Across every Preply tutor we could read, only three had any testimonial citing a concrete grade at all.

The consequence is blunt: the rankings are populated almost entirely by Wyzant tutors, and the site’s operator happens to be one of the few Preply tutors who qualifies. That is an artifact of how each platform’s students write reviews — not evidence that Wyzant tutors teach better. If you are choosing between platforms, do not read anything into it. A great Preply tutor is simply invisible to a method that requires numbers, and most of them are.

Not affiliated with anyone

TutorRank is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Wyzant, Preply, or any tutoring platform. Data is collected from public profiles and reflects a snapshot in time; rates, availability, and reviews change. Always check the tutor’s own profile before booking. We earn no commission on any booking.