About CorpDigest

CorpDigest exists to make company strategy, history, and business models accessible to anyone who wants to understand how major companies actually work. We write for students trying to decode case studies, writers looking for context, entrepreneurs studying business models, and readers who want more than a market-cap headline. A company is not only what it is worth today. It is a chain of choices: what it chose to build, what it ignored, what it survived, and how it learned to make money.

We started this site because business information is often split between dense financial filings and shallow summaries. Our goal is to sit in the middle: plain enough to be useful, careful enough to be trusted, and specific enough that a reader leaves with a real understanding of the company.

We care especially about the questions that do not fit neatly into a stock quote: why one company earns better margins than another, why a founder decision still matters decades later, why a business model looks simple from the outside but depends on a complicated operating system underneath. Those are the questions we try to answer in ordinary language.

Every company profile on CorpDigest draws from public financial filings, company investor relations pages, news archives, and editorial analysis. We use annual reports, SEC filings where available, official company disclosures, earnings materials, and credible reporting to cross-check important facts. Profiles are reviewed for factual accuracy before publishing. Revenue and employee figures reflect the most recently available fiscal year data we can verify from public sources.

We try to separate facts from interpretation. Founding years, leadership names, headquarters, revenue, and major milestones are treated as factual claims that need verification. Strategic sections, such as moat analysis or SWOT, are editorial judgments based on those facts.

Our research process usually starts with the basic record: filings, annual reports, investor pages, and public announcements. Then we look for the operating story behind the numbers. We read for revenue mix, customer dependence, regulatory pressure, acquisitions, leadership changes, and market shifts. When a source is thin or a figure is not separately disclosed, we avoid pretending the data is more exact than it is.

We score every company on a 1-10 Growth Score based on revenue trajectory, market position, and strategic momentum. A high score does not mean a stock is a good investment, and a low score does not mean a company is failing. It is a research signal that helps readers compare how strongly a company appears to be compounding its operating position.

SWOT analysis is editorial, not algorithmic. We use public records and operating evidence to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Timeline events are sourced from verifiable public records whenever possible. See our full Methodology page for more detail on how we structure company profiles, comparison pages, and business model analysis.

We also compare companies because strategy is easier to understand in contrast. Apple makes more sense next to Microsoft and Samsung. Visa makes more sense next to Mastercard. Toyota makes more sense next to Tesla and Volkswagen. A comparison page is not meant to crown a permanent winner. It is meant to show the tradeoffs that shape each business.

We correct errors. If you spot a factual mistake, contact us at editorial@corpdigest.com with the page URL, the disputed sentence or figure, and a source we should review. We do not accept payment to alter editorial coverage, remove criticism, add praise, or change a company comparison. We also do not write investment recommendations, price targets, or sponsored company profiles.

When a figure is estimated, privately held, or derived from reporting rather than a direct filing, we aim to make that clear in the relevant profile. We would rather be slower and clearer than publish confident-looking claims that readers cannot trace.

We know business pages can be used by students, writers, and working professionals who need dependable background. That is why we treat corrections as part of the work, not as an embarrassment. If a reader points us to a better source, we review it, update the page when warranted, and keep the profile moving toward a more accurate version.

Most business information sites fall into two categories: financial data terminals that assume expert knowledge, or content farms that recycle the same surface-level facts without verification. CorpDigest occupies a different space. We write original editorial analysis grounded in primary sources, structured for readers who want to understand the business, not just see a number.

Every profile on this site is written and reviewed by a single editor who reads the actual filings. We do not use AI-generated summaries passed off as research. We do not scrape Wikipedia or rewrite press releases. When we describe a company's business model, we trace it to the revenue line items in their annual report. When we list a milestone, we look for the filing or announcement that confirms it.

We also choose depth over breadth. Rather than publishing thousands of shallow pages, we maintain a focused set of company profiles where each one meets a minimum standard for sourcing, narrative quality, and data completeness. If a company does not yet meet that standard, it does not appear in our public directory.

CorpDigest is run by Swet Parvadiya in India. The site is independent and is not funded by the companies it covers. That independence matters because the value of this work depends on reader trust, not corporate approval.

The workflow is deliberately simple: collect public source material, structure it into readable profiles, review the claims against those sources, and improve pages when better information becomes available. The site is still growing, but the standard is plain: every page should help a reader understand the business more clearly than when they arrived.

Because the project is small, it has to be selective. CorpDigest would rather maintain fewer useful company pages than publish hundreds of empty profiles. The current focus is to keep the approved company set useful, accurate, and connected through comparison pages, timelines, FAQs, and methodology notes.