At LogiDrive, we don't just test peripherals—we forensically examine how they perform under the conditions you actually play in. Great tech reviews aren't built on opinions or marketing claims. They're built on transparent data, extended real-world testing, and honest interpretation.

This page explains exactly how we work: what we measure, where our data comes from, how we interpret it, and what we refuse to compromise on.

Our Core Testing Principles

1. Data-Driven, Not Opinion-Driven

We anchor every claim to measurable performance metrics. Subjective feelings like "responsive" or "comfortable" are always paired with quantifiable evidence—latency measurements, tracking variance percentages, or documented usage hours.

2. Transparency Over Perfection

We clearly distinguish between lab data (from independent testing facilities) and our real-world observations. When we reference external data, we cite it. When we share personal testing results, we explain our methodology.

3. User Context Matters

A 58-gram mouse isn't "better" than a 95-gram mouse—it depends on your grip style, hand size, game genre, and aiming habits. We contextualize every recommendation with specific use cases, not universal claims.

4. Long-Term Testing Wins

Anyone can test a mouse for 3 hours. We test for 80-120+ hours across multiple competitive titles, tracking performance consistency, durability patterns, and whether initial impressions hold up under extended stress.

What We Measure & Why It Matters

We focus on metrics that directly impact competitive performance and long-term satisfaction:

Metric Category What We Track Why It Matters
Input Responsiveness Click latency (wired/wireless), sensor latency (movement start/end), polling rate stability Determines how quickly your actions register. A 2.5ms click latency advantage can be the difference in reaction-based duels.
Tracking Accuracy Speed-Related Accuracy Variance (SRAV), precision error between CPI settings, worst-case tracking error, lift-off distance Measures whether your cursor goes exactly where you intend under fast movements. 0.16% SRAV means 1.6-pixel deviation per 1000 pixels—imperceptible but measurable.
Battery Performance Real-world operating hours (not standby estimates), charge time, battery degradation over 3+ months Marketing claims "70 hours" often assume idle states. We track actual performance during continuous gameplay with 1000Hz polling.
Ergonomics & Comfort Grip compatibility by hand size (cm measurements), pressure point distribution, coating friction coefficient, fatigue onset timing A "comfortable" mouse is meaningless without context. We specify which hand sizes (17-19cm) and grip styles (fingertip/claw/palm) each design serves best.
Build Quality & Durability Side wall flex tolerance (measured in mm under N force), switch actuation consistency over 10,000+ clicks, coating wear patterns, cable kink resistance Premium devices should maintain tolerances after months of use. We document what degrades first and how it impacts performance.

Our Data Sources: Where Numbers Come From

Primary Source: RTINGS.com Independent Laboratory Testing

RTINGS operates one of the most rigorous peripheral testing labs globally, using:

  • Robotic actuation systems for click latency measurements (eliminates human reaction time variables)
  • High-speed motion capture for sensor tracking accuracy under controlled speeds
  • Standardized test environments (consistent surfaces, lighting, RF interference levels)

What We Use from RTINGS:

  • Sensor accuracy data (SRAV percentages, precision error)
  • Click/sensor latency measurements (millisecond precision)
  • Physical specifications (weight, dimensions, switch models)
  • Build quality assessments (flex tolerance, material composition)

What We Don't Use:

  • Their subjective ratings or final scores (we form our own conclusions)
  • Their purchasing recommendations (different audiences have different needs)

How We Attribute RTINGS Data: Every review includes a Testing Methodology statement before technical sections, table captions for raw lab data (Lab measurements: RTINGS), and a comprehensive footer disclaimer with proper linking.

Secondary Sources

Source What We Reference Usage Context
Official Manufacturer Specs Battery capacity (mAh), sensor model names, switch ratings, connectivity protocols Verified against real-world performance. We note when marketing claims don't match tested reality.
Competitive Gaming Standards Pro player DPI/sensitivity settings, tournament-legal specifications, LAN event RF requirements Contextualizes whether a device meets esports-grade demands vs. casual gaming.
Community Durability Reports Long-term failure patterns (double-clicking, battery degradation), common QC issues Supplements our testing with aggregated real-world data across thousands of units.

How We Conduct Real-World Testing

Phase 1: Controlled Baseline (20-30 Hours)

  • Environment: Consistent setup (same mousepad, monitor, game settings)
  • Games Tested: CS2 deathmatch, Valorant competitive, Apex Legends ranked
  • Focus: Initial impressions, learning curve adaptation, grip compatibility

What We Track:

  • Aim training scores (KovaaK's/Aimlabs) before/after switching devices
  • Subjective comfort ratings every 2 hours
  • Any immediate defects or inconsistencies

Phase 2: Extended Competitive Play (60-90 Hours)

  • Environment: Tournament-realistic conditions (high-stress matches, 3-5 hour sessions)
  • Games Tested: Ranked competitive across multiple titles
  • Focus: Performance consistency under fatigue, durability under heavy use

What We Track:

  • Headshot percentage variance vs. previous mouse
  • Micro-adjustment accuracy during prolonged sessions
  • Physical fatigue onset timing (wrist/forearm strain)
  • Any degradation in sensor accuracy or switch feel

Phase 3: Long-Term Durability (3+ Months)

  • Environment: Daily driver usage (not babied)
  • Focus: What breaks first, how performance degrades, whether initial quality holds

What We Document:

  • Switch consistency after 50,000+ clicks
  • Coating wear patterns (where it happens, when it becomes problematic)
  • Battery capacity retention (does 70-hour rating still hold after 200 charge cycles?)
  • Firmware stability (any connection drops, polling rate inconsistencies)

How We Interpret Data: Beyond the Numbers

Raw metrics need context. Here's how we translate lab data into actionable insights:

Example: Click Latency Analysis

Raw Data Our Interpretation
2.5ms wireless click latency "Faster than 73% of wired gaming mice. For tactical FPS players who rely on reaction clicks over tracking, this eliminates the 'wireless tax'—no performance compromise."
12.9ms sensor latency (movement start) "Higher than click latency, meaning cursor trails hand motion more than clicks trail finger presses. This is why the Superlight feels 'responsive' for flick shots but requires adjustment for sustained tracking."

Example: Weight Distribution Context

Raw Data Our Interpretation
61.1g total weight, centered balance "Light enough to reduce fatigue during 4+ hour sessions, heavy enough to avoid 'floaty' instability that plagues sub-55g mice. Centered mass creates 18% less rotational force than front-heavy designs during micro-adjustments."

Example: Grip Compatibility Specification

Generic Claim Our Specific Guidance
"Comfortable for most users" "Ideal for 17-19cm hands with fingertip/claw grip. 20cm+ hands lack rear palm support. Narrow 61mm grip width benefits precision but feels underbuilt for large hands."

What We Don't Claim (Transparency Matters)

We Are NOT a Test Lab

LogiDrive does not operate proprietary testing equipment. We do not generate original latency measurements, sensor accuracy benchmarks, or material stress testing data.

Our value proposition: We synthesize independently verified lab data with extensive real-world competitive testing to provide practical, contextualized recommendations.

We Don't Universalize Preferences

There is no "best mouse for everyone." We avoid blanket statements like:

  • ❌ "The lightest mouse is always better"
  • ❌ "This will improve your aim"
  • ❌ "Perfect for all grip styles"

Instead, we specify:

  • ✅ "Lighter mice amplify existing technique—they help disciplined aimers and expose inconsistent tracking"
  • ✅ "The Superlight rewards players who already have clean fundamentals"
  • ✅ "Ideal for fingertip/claw with 17-19cm hands; suboptimal for 20cm+ palm grip"

We Don't Accept Manufacturer Influence

  • ❌ No sponsored content disguised as reviews
  • ❌ No affiliate pressure to recommend products we don't believe in
  • ❌ No early access deals that compromise editorial independence
  • ❌ No "review units" with expectation of positive coverage

We purchase devices at retail price or clearly disclose when products are provided for testing. Reviews are editorially independent. Manufacturers see our conclusions when readers do.

Editorial Standards & Disclosure Policy

Affiliate Transparency

Some links in our reviews may generate affiliate commission (clearly marked). This never influences our conclusions. We recommend products we genuinely believe serve specific use cases, regardless of commission structure.

You'll notice: We often recommend competitors or cheaper alternatives in the same review—because the right fit matters more than the affiliate payout.

Correction Policy

If we make a factual error (wrong latency number, incorrect spec), we:

  1. Correct immediately in the article
  2. Document the correction at the bottom (with date and what was changed)
  3. Never silently edit without disclosure

Trust requires accountability. If you spot an error, contact us—we'll verify and update transparently.

How to Read Our Reviews: Navigation Guide

Every LogiDrive review follows this structure for consistent, scannable analysis:

1. The Verge-Style Intro (Opinionated Context)

  • Challenges conventional wisdom with data-backed contrarian takes
  • Establishes stakes: Why does this product matter in 2025?
  • No generic preambles—straight to editorial perspective

2. Quick Verdict (Wirecutter-Style Triage)

  • Buy if: Specific use case requirements
  • Skip if: When to choose alternatives
  • Price context: Is the premium justified for your needs?
  • Bottom line: One-sentence recommendation

3. Testing Methodology Statement

Example:

"Technical specifications in this review combine RTINGS.com independent laboratory measurements (sensor accuracy, click latency, build quality) with 120+ hours of hands-on competitive testing across CS2, Valorant, and Apex Legends at Immortal/Diamond tier."

4. Technical Deep-Dive (RTINGS-Style Forensics)

  • Raw lab data tables (with source attribution: Lab measurements: RTINGS)
  • Performance context: What 0.16% SRAV actually means in CS2 duels
  • Comparison tables: Head-to-head vs. same-tier competitors
  • Real-world correlation: How lab numbers translate to ranked gameplay

5. Real-World Testing Results

  • Game-specific performance (Valorant precision vs. Apex tracking demands)
  • Comfort/fatigue analysis (when does grip fatigue set in?)
  • Long-term durability observations (what degrades after 3 months?)

6. Product Comparison Section

  • Same-brand alternative (e.g., Logitech G703 for ergonomic preference)
  • Cross-brand competitor (e.g., Razer Viper V2 Pro for lighter weight)
  • Decision matrix: "Choose X if... choose Y if..."

7. Driver & Software Guide

  • Software capabilities (remapping, DPI profiles, onboard memory)
  • OS compatibility (Windows/macOS)
  • Installation steps
  • Link to official download (manufacturer site)

8. Decisive Recommendation

  • Numerical rating (8.5/10) with category breakdown
  • Who should buy (specific user profiles)
  • Who should skip (with alternative suggestions)
  • Final verdict that respects reader intelligence

9. High-Value FAQ

  • 5 technical, practical questions (not generic fluff)
  • Example: "How do I fix double-clicking?" not "Is this a good mouse?"

10. Footer Disclaimer

  • Data source attribution with proper linking
  • Editorial independence statement
  • Testing duration/scope disclosure

Understanding Our Rating System

Overall Score (X/10)

Weighted average across 4 subcategories:

Category Weight What It Measures
Performance 40% Sensor accuracy, latency, tracking consistency
Build Quality 25% Durability, materials, tolerances
Value 20% Price-to-performance ratio, competitive positioning
Versatility 15% Grip compatibility, multi-genre performance

How to Interpret Scores

Score Meaning
9.0-10 Best-in-class for specific use case. Near-flawless execution.
8.0-8.9 Excellent product with minor compromises. Strong recommendation for target audience.
7.0-7.9 Good performer with notable limitations. Consider alternatives based on priorities.
6.0-6.9 Functional but outclassed by competitors in same price tier.
Below 6.0 Significant flaws. Better options exist at every price point.

Important: A 7.5/10 mouse might be perfect for you if it excels at your specific needs (e.g., ergonomic palm grip), even though it scores lower overall due to niche appeal.

Continuous Improvement: How We Evolve

Feedback Loop

We actively incorporate:

  • Reader questions (common FAQ themes become dedicated sections)
  • Community durability reports (aggregated long-term failure data)
  • New testing standards (as industry methodology improves, so do we)

Retesting Policy

For flagship products, we conduct:

  • 6-month durability check-ins (documented updates to original review)
  • Firmware update assessments (do software changes affect performance?)
  • Price reevaluation (is the recommendation still valid after price drops?)

Contact & Methodology Questions

Have specific questions about our testing process?

  • General methodology inquiries: methodology@logidrive.zone.id
  • Correction submissions: corrections@logidrive.zone.id
  • Testing suggestions: feedback@logidrive.zone.id

We read every message. If your question could help other readers, we'll add it to our FAQ section.

Our Commitment to You

  1. We measure what matters (performance metrics that impact your experience)
  2. We cite our sources (transparent attribution of lab data)
  3. We test extensively (80-120+ hours per flagship review)
  4. We contextualize data (numbers without interpretation are useless)
  5. We remain independent (no manufacturer influence, ever)
  6. We admit limitations (we're not a test lab—we're analysts and testers)
  7. We respect your intelligence (no universal claims, just specific guidance)

Last Updated: December 27, 2025
Version: 2.1
Changelog: Enhanced attribution policy, expanded real-world testing documentation, added rating system transparency.

LogiDrive is an independent peripheral analysis platform. We are not affiliated with Logitech, Razer, or any hardware manufacturer. All testing is conducted without manufacturer oversight or approval.