Understand the label.
Compare the requirements.
Explore five regenerative and conservation programs. Compare how they verify, measure, and define their claims—then open the evidence behind the comparison.
5 programs · 15 comparison criteria · Reviewed November 1, 2026
Look at the entry baseline, prohibited practices, independent checks, measurements and the scope of protection.
Which programs do you want to compare?
Select programs below, or narrow the list by a documented feature. Multiple feature filters are combined with AND.
Filters indicate documented requirements, not eligibility approval or an overall rigor score. Conditional applicability still matters.
Compare what is actually required
Click any cell for the source, scope and exceptions. Scroll horizontally on smaller screens.
These are editorial comparisons of the listed editions, not verbatim requirements or a certification decision. “Not established” means this review did not establish the feature—it does not prove that every regional or operation-specific requirement omits it.
Ask better questions about a label
Use a lens to inspect the evidence that matters to you. Program levels are not interchangeable, and an audit schedule alone does not settle which program is more demanding.
Why isn’t there a single rigor score?
A score would require subjective weights between different goals. A habitat-focused ranching program, an organic-based certification and a crop supply-chain program do not make identical claims. This guide exposes the criteria, sources and tradeoffs so you can compare the features you value.
Required, conditional, progressive and not-established labels describe the reviewed rules. They are not grades for environmental or social performance. Two programs with the same status may have very different requirements; open the cells.
How are tiers and transition periods compared?
ROC’s Bronze/Silver/Gold, SCI’s Engagement Levels I–IV, Audubon’s phased protocol deadlines, Rainforest Alliance’s add-on modality and AGW’s plan horizon describe different systems. Neither a higher-sounding name nor a longer transition period establishes an equivalent level of rigor across programs.
Follow the comparison back to its source
The five “Full guide” links use the Why Regenerative URLs supplied for this page. Official sources support the comparison; requirements may change after the review date.
Edition notes and comparison method
ROC uses the supplied Framework v4.1 (2023), SCI uses Standard v3.0 (2025), and AGW uses ST161v1 (2026). Rainforest Alliance uses RAS v1.0 and its implementation guidance. Audubon uses its currently linked September 2023 general protocols, rather than the 2017 archive used in the earlier guide.
We compare the presence and form of documented requirements. We distinguish farm audits from company verification, field assessments from lab testing, plans from measured outcomes, and missing evidence from a confirmed exemption. Regional rules, crop applicability, certified scope and later policies can change the answer for an individual operation.
Cost entries identify items to price, not a complete mandatory fee schedule or a cheapest-to-most-expensive ranking. Dates are source editions, not claims that every document has been revised this year.