Their point (I assume) is that any kind of comparison between metrics invites some level of subjectivity, and they want to make the raw data as easy to work with as possible. I agree with this sentiment (insofar as there should be at least one organization doing that), but I agree that their presentation of the raw data leaves a lot out in terms of what you actually get for your money and which organizations are good at it.
I'm going to wait a few months for them to flesh out their site before I criticize them too heavily.
Fair enough. It does seem to have potential, and we're a hard crowd to please.
AidGrade is a new charity evaluator that looks to be comparable to GiveWell. Their primary difference is that they *only* focus on how charities compare along particular measured outcomes (such as school attendance, birthrate, chance of opening a business, malaria), without making any effort to compare between types of charities. (This includes interesting results like "Conditional Cash Transfers and Deworming are better at improving attendance rates than scholarships")
GiveWell also does this, but designs their site to direct people towards their top charities. This is better for people with don't have the time to do the (fairly complex) work of comparing charities across domains, but AidGrade aims to be better for people that just want the raw data and the ability to form their own conclusions.
I haven't looked it enough to compare the quality of the two organizations' work, but I'm glad we finally have another organization, to encourage some competition and dialog about different approaches.
This is a fun page to play around with to get a feel for what they do:
http://www.aidgrade.org/compare-programs-by-outcome
And this is a blog post outlining their differences with GiveWell:
http://www.aidgrade.org/uncategorized/some-friendly-concerns-with-givewell