There is a great article from Cornell Tech called “Crowdsourced Fact-Checking Fights Misinformation in Taiwan”. It explores this question of how quick, trustworthy and credible Cofacts is. It found that a lot of the volunteers were vectors of information. They were able to disseminate credible information much more quickly than state or media agencies that do fact-checking. It said that they respond faster than journalists, mostly because they repurpose a lot of articles, work and media and disseminate them to the community much faster than a top-down approach could maybe do.
The article found Cofacts to be just as accurate as professional sources. I will say that Cofacts employs a pluralistic and participatory model of fact-checking, which is often seen as a more top-down approach. In a very small sample, it was found that Taiwanese graduate students found articles by journalists to be more persuasive, but Cofacts' posts were much clearer. That's how the model works. I would just say this is a much more decentralized effort.
One of its key unique features is that it has volunteers with diverse backgrounds, who are able to give multiple verifications if they don't agree with the initial verification that's done. You have a community working together. I should also say that users can upvote or downvote the perceived the quality of the verification that is done to build further trust. I recommend looking into the Cofacts model for inspiration.