Any investigation firm that has been going long enough ends up quoting a success rate. Ours is around 95%. Since we are in the middle of tightening up every statistic on our sites, it would be odd to leave our own number unexamined, so here it is in full.
Where the figure comes from
It is our own data. Not a study, not an industry benchmark, not a survey of anybody else’s clients. It is what we have seen across our own matters over 20 years of operating.
That is why the qualifier is now attached everywhere the figure appears: based on our own client outcomes over 20 years. A bare “95% success rate” reads like a published finding. It is not one, and the wording should not imply otherwise.
What counts as a success
A matter is successful when the client ends up with a clear, usable answer to the question they came to us with.
For a surveillance matter that usually means documented evidence of what a partner was doing, where, and with whom. For a locate it means the person is found. For a background or corporate matter it means the check comes back with something the client can act on.
Crucially, it also includes the matters where the answer is no. A client who suspects their partner and engages us, and gets back a fortnight of surveillance showing their partner going to work and coming home, has had a successful matter. They came for certainty and they got it. Those cases are in the 95%.
What it does not mean
It does not mean 95% of our clients discover that their partner is cheating.
That version of the claim turns up occasionally, and we want to be clear that it is not what we are saying. It would be a much bigger claim, it would be worse for the clients whose partners are innocent, and our own records do not support it. Some proportion of people who walk through our door are wrong about their suspicions, and finding that out is one of the better outcomes this job produces.
It is also not a guarantee. It is a historical figure across a large number of matters. Any individual job depends on the circumstances, the time available and what there is to find.
Why we are spelling this out
Because we have just finished doing the same thing to every other number on our sites, and it would be inconsistent not to.
The infidelity statistics that used to sit on our pages, and on most pages in this industry, turned out to have no sources behind them. Figures like “50% of people cheat at least once” or “suspicious partners are right 85% of the time” are not findings, they are numbers that got repeated until they looked official. We have removed them, and a sister site has written up how to spot one.
What we quote now is a single sourced figure and we say where it is from. A US Institute for Family Studies analysis of General Social Survey data found that 20% of married men and 13% of married women reported having sex with someone other than their spouse while married. There is no Australian study measuring the same thing. The most cited Australian source, Relationships Australia, surveyed around 1,800 visitors to its website on what they believe causes infidelity, and most named emotional disconnection. That is a perception survey and we do not present it as a rate.
The standard we are holding ourselves to
If a number on our site describes the world, it gets a link to the research and wording that matches what was measured. If it describes us, it gets said plainly as our own experience, with the period it covers.
If we cannot do either, the number comes off the page. Several have.
There is a commercial argument for this, which is that search engines and AI systems are increasingly checking claims against their sources and inconsistent numbers across a group of sites are a problem. But the real reason is simpler. People contact us because they need to know something for certain. Starting that relationship with a statistic we made up would be a strange way to go about it.
