These sorts of rankings all depend on the criteria used to evaluate the presidents.
Why is Biden considered to be in the top one third of all presidents? Because of the Inflation Reduction Act? It would be interesting to know all of the precise criteria they use. Do they measure economic conditions during a president’s term? Do they give bonus points for a president who was president during a depression or a World War? Are they considering margins of election victory? Are they considering the long-term historic impact of a president and his policies?
The “experts” are mostly just voting their prejudices, but if asked to defend their choice, they’d say 1) Biden put Trump, the worst and most dangerous president, out of the White House, 2) he brought NATO back together (to deal with the war he helped start), and 3) he got all kinds of legislation through Congress (whether or not it’s really worthy and good legislation).
When it comes to recent presidents, they aren’t considering the long-term impact of policies. Great crises, as people say, make great presidents, so Coolidge isn’t going to score higher than FDR. There’s much silliness involved: how can anybody say how good a president William Henry Harrison was when he was only president for a month? Can you really compare nineteenth century presidents who had an easier job with later presidents?
Other surveys try to break up the questions into the various duties of the president and average them together. That doesn’t work either. Some areas and activities are more important than others at different times. Trump scores poorly because the bureaucracy, the media, and half the country didn’t like him. That we had prosperity and peace — what most people care most about — during Donald Trump’s years in office doesn’t count for as much with the “experts.” Recent Democrat presidents pick up free points for “Equal Justice for All,” whether or not they actually did anything to promote that goal.