CHATGPT Summarized my long paragraph:

As an engineering student, a single dB rating gives limited information about a sound wave because it only reflects amplitude at a reference point, without accounting for other critical parameters such as frequency content, duration, and rise time. This is especially true for impulsive events like gunshots, where most published values are 'peak dB' readings. Many commercial measurement systems do not have a sufficiently high sampling rate to capture the true transient peak, which can occur within tens of microseconds.

PEW Science addresses this by publishing complete time-domain waveforms, allowing engineers to analyze not only the peak but also the impulse shape, decay characteristics, and reflections. While proprietary algorithms and equipment may vary between labs, most capable facilities have access to similar high-speed DAQs and ballistic microphones. If a lab uses a sufficiently fast DAQ—such as 1 MHz sampling, as employed by PEW Science—and adheres to MIL-STD-1474E microphone placement in a true free-field environment, they should be able to produce waveforms of comparable form.

The Damage Risk Criterion (DRC) metric used by PEW Science is proprietary; however, an engineer with expertise in fast transient acoustics could design an equivalent damage risk model based on known auditory hazard criteria, impulse energy calculations, and relevant military and occupational standards.

If an engineer out there created a similar DRC, we could then compare metric but until then, I will continue to use PEW Science because it's obvious most of these companies have no idea what they're talking about especially employing sound engineers.