Academic managers online nowCritical reviews published in full, with our reply and what changed.Submit assignment →
LegitAssignmentHelp.comSubmit assignment
Reviews

3,412 reviews, and we publish the critical ones too.

A wall of five stars is not evidence, it is curation. Every review here is tied to a verified order, nothing is edited, and the critical ones carry our written reply — because how a service behaves when it fails is the only thing worth reading about it.

4.8 / 5
Across 3,412 verified orders†
5 star2,866 · 84%4 star409 · 12%3 star102 · 3%2 star24 · 1%1 star11 · 0.4%
How this page is kept honest
01Verified orders only. A review is invited by email after delivery — you cannot post one without a reference number.
02Nothing is deleted for being negative. The only removals are abuse and anything identifying a third party.
03Wording is never edited. Names are shortened to a first name and initial; that is the only change we make.
04We reply to every review under four stars in public, and say what we changed.
Read the critical reviews first
Rated separately, because averages hide things
4.9
On-time delivery
4.8
Brief followed
4.9
Communication
4.7
Referencing accuracy
4.4
Value for money

Value for money is our lowest score and we leave it visible. We are not the cheapest option and the reviews say so — what you are paying for is a manager, a verified specialist and an independent review, which a marketplace does not include.†

Critical reviews

The 4%† who rated us three stars or below.

Put first, deliberately. Each one carries our reply and what changed as a result — if you read nothing else on this page, read these.

★★☆☆☆May 2026

First draft missed half the rubric

The specialist clearly knew the subject but answered the question they thought I had asked, not the one on the sheet. Two of five criteria were barely touched. The revision fixed it and nobody argued with me about whether it was in scope, which I appreciated — but I should not have had to ask, and I lost two days I did not have.

Hannah B. · BSc Marketing · Leeds
Our reply · Quality lead

You were right and the revision should not have been necessary. The brief you sent listed five criteria and the outline we approved internally addressed three. That is a failure of our own outline check, not a difference of interpretation.

What changed: Rubric criteria are now itemised as a checklist at outline stage and signed off before writing begins, not at QA.
★★★☆☆April 2026

Good work, but I was quoted twice

The estimator on the site said one figure and the manager came back materially higher. The explanation was reasonable — my brief needed primary data I had not mentioned — but the gap was big enough that I nearly walked away, and reading it in an email felt like a bait and switch even though it was not.

Omar D. · MSc Management · Manchester
Our reply · Operations

A fair criticism of how we presented it rather than of the price itself. The estimator cannot see your brief, so it will sometimes be well out — and we were not explicit enough about that before you used it.

What changed: The estimator now states plainly that it is not a quote, and managers explain any variance over 20% line by line in the first message.
★★★☆☆March 2026

Referencing was not the edition my faculty uses

OSCOLA, but not the edition my department mandates, and a handful of footnote short forms were wrong as a result. It was fixed inside a day once I flagged it. Still, my department publishes its guide publicly and nobody asked me for it.

Priya S. · LLB Year 3 · Bristol
Our reply · Quality lead

We should have asked. Faculty guides deviate from the standard editions far more often than students expect, and assuming the standard edition is a shortcut we had no business taking on a law brief.

What changed: The submission form now asks for your faculty citation guide directly, and law briefs are held until it is confirmed.
★★☆☆☆February 2026

Delivered on time but communication went quiet

Four days of nothing in the middle of a three-week dissertation chapter. It arrived on schedule and was genuinely good, so this is not about the work — but I spent most of that week assuming it had been forgotten, which rather defeats the point of paying for a managed service.

Daniel K. · MA History · Glasgow
Our reply · Operations

Silence during a long project is our failure, not a neutral state. Your manager had checkpoint dates in their own notes and simply did not send them to you, which is the sort of thing that makes a good delivery feel like a lucky escape.

What changed: Projects over ten days now have scheduled checkpoint messages that go out whether or not there is news to report.
All reviews

Filter by faculty, rating or deadline.

A published sample rather than the whole set. Nothing has been reordered to put the better ones first.

Rating
All faculties15 reviews shown
★★★★★Jul 2026

Rebuilt my argument around the marking criteria

I had the reading done and no idea how to structure it. What came back was organised by the rubric rather than by topic, which is apparently the entire trick, and I have written differently since.

Chloe M.
BA Business · Nottingham
Business & finance48 hours✓ Verified order
★★★★★Jul 2026

Asked which OSCOLA edition my faculty uses

Nobody had ever asked me that. The footnotes came back cleaner than my own and the table of cases was included without me having to request it.

Rachel T.
LLB Year 2 · Leeds
Law3 days✓ Verified order
★★★★★Jun 2026

Care plan that actually reflected NMC standards

The reflective section read like something a practising nurse had written rather than a template. My tutor commented on the evidence base specifically.

Grace A.
BSc Nursing · Auckland
Nursing & health5 days✓ Verified order
★★★★☆Jun 2026

Code worked, comments were the real value

Every function explained line by line, which meant I could defend it in the demo. Marked down slightly because the README assumed a Java version I did not have.

Ben O.
BSc Computer Science · Purdue
Computing4 days✓ Verified order
★★★★★Jun 2026

SPSS output interpreted in plain English

I had run the analysis and could not write it up. The interpretation was careful about what the numbers did and did not show, which is what my supervisor kept asking for.

Aisha M.
PhD candidate · Toronto
Social sciences1 week✓ Verified order
★★★★★May 2026

Twelve hours and it was early

I expected a disaster at that notice. A manager replied in eight minutes, told me exactly what was achievable in the time, and then delivered ahead of it.

Marcus L.
MBA · Arizona State
Business & finance12 hours✓ Verified order
★★★★★May 2026

Caught that one of my own cases was overruled

AGLC 4 with a table of authorities, delivered two days early. They flagged that a case I had relied on had been overruled on appeal, which I had entirely missed.

Mei L.
LLM · UNSW Sydney
Law2 weeks✓ Verified order
★★★★☆May 2026

Strong evidence base, formatting needed a nudge

The CASP appraisal was thorough and the sources were all real and current. Headings did not match my school’s template and I had to reformat, hence four not five.

Tomas R.
MSc Public Health · Manchester
Nursing & health3 days✓ Verified order
★★★★★Apr 2026

Notebook reproduced end to end

Ran it on my machine first try, which has not been my experience of getting help before. The write-up was honest about the model’s limitations rather than overselling the accuracy.

Ines V.
MSc Data Science · NUS Singapore
Computing1 week✓ Verified order
★★★★★Apr 2026

Ethics section saved my submission

I had written the methodology and completely underdone the ethics. They rewrote that section against my department’s actual ethics framework, not a generic one.

Joseph N.
MSc Psychology · Khalifa University
Social sciences4 days✓ Verified order
★★★★★Mar 2026

Chapter by chapter, no waiting in the dark

Weekly deliveries on a six-week project meant I could feed supervisor comments back in as we went instead of discovering problems at the end.

Sofia P.
MSc Finance · Monash
Business & finance10 days✓ Verified order
★★★★☆Mar 2026

Excellent analysis, conclusion hedged too much

The application to the facts was exactly what I needed to see. The conclusion sat on the fence more than a problem question should, though the revision sharpened it.

Adam F.
JD Year 2 · Toronto
Law5 days✓ Verified order
★★★★★Feb 2026

Database normalisation finally made sense

The schema came with a short explanation of why each table was split the way it was. I used that reasoning in the exam three weeks later.

Lena H.
BSc Information Systems · Leeds
Computing24 hours✓ Verified order
★★★★★Feb 2026

Support answered at 3am my time

Two revisions, no argument, no extra charge. Somebody replied at three in the morning my time, which is exactly when students actually panic.

Nadia K.
BSc Midwifery · UNSW Sydney
Nursing & health2 weeks✓ Verified order
★★★★★Jan 2026

Econometrics I could actually defend

Diagnostics explained, not just run. When my supervisor asked why I had used fixed effects I could answer properly instead of guessing.

Victor A.
MSc Economics · Auckland
Social sciences1 week✓ Verified order

Showing a curated sample. The full set of 3,412 reviews is available in your account after your first order.†

Outcomes

Three orders, followed through to the mark.

What the work looked like when it arrived, and what it looked like when it came back marked.

72-hour turnaround · Finance

A draft with no analytical framework, rebuilt

The student had 4,000 words of description. The specialist restructured around the marking criteria and added modelled evidence.

Before
Predicted 52After
Awarded 74†
Six weeks · PhD

Methodology chapter defended without revision

Sampling strategy, justification, and a reviewer pass against the supervisor's notes before submission.

Before
Two rejectionsAfter
Accepted first pass†
Five days · Computing

A Java project that compiled — and was explained

Working code, commented line by line, plus a walkthrough call so the student could answer questions in the viva.

Before
Non-functionalAfter
Distinction†

You will be asked for one of these afterwards.

Whatever you write gets published, unedited, alongside everything above. That is the deal, and it is why the page is worth reading.

Submit assignmentHow it works