Broker Review Methodology

Scoring model

Each broker receives a weighted score out of 5 across six categories. Weights are fixed and published, and no category may be adjusted for an individual broker. When all six category scores are recorded, the overall score is calculated automatically from these weights.

Brands operated by the publisher of this website are the one exception. Their scores are set by the publisher, not produced by this scoring model, and the review itself says so, in the score panel and in a disclosure above it, and so does the comparison table. The facts behind those brands are recorded and published in the same way as for every other broker, so readers can weigh them independently of the score.

What we assess in each category

Across these categories we examine regulatory status, transparency of company information, trading costs and fees, product range, account information, risk disclosures, customer-support availability, educational resources, complaint and enforcement history where verified, website transparency and overall user experience.

Regions and legal entities

Many brokers operate through several legal entities, each authorised in a different jurisdiction. Services, leverage limits, client-money rules and compensation arrangements depend on the entity that holds an account. Each review therefore lists the entity and regulator for every region we cover, and our Brokers by Region pages show the entity that applies to each location.

Regions are added as brokers are added to the directory.

Information we do not show on cards

Minimum deposit amounts are not shown on broker cards or in comparisons. They change frequently and vary by account type, country and broker entity, so a single figure can mislead. Where relevant, account terms are described in the full review with a retrieval date.

Scoring rubric

Every category score is calculated from facts recorded on the broker’s official website, legal documents and regulator sources, using the same rules for every broker. Information we could not find on the broker’s official website counts as not disclosed. The facts behind each score are listed in every review.

Regulation and transparency (29%)

• Strongest regulator of any group entity: 4.0 for a major regulator (EU and EEA national regulators, FCA, ASIC, CFTC and NFA, MAS, FINMA, Japan FSA, CIRO, DFSA, ADGM FSRA, FMA New Zealand); 3.0 for FSCA, CMA Kenya, FSC Mauritius, Securities Commission of The Bahamas, CIMA, Bermuda Monetary Authority, Jordan Securities Commission, Israel Securities Authority, UAE Securities and Commodities Authority, Central Bank of Armenia or the Financial Superintendency of Colombia; 2.0 for FSA Seychelles, BVI FSC, Vanuatu FSC or FSC Belize; 1.0 for Comoros (Anjouan or Mwali) licences; 0.5 when only a company registration, or no licence, is confirmed. Introduction or marketing-only permissions are not counted as dealing licences.
• Plus 0.5 when two or more different major regulators authorise group entities.
• Plus 0.5 when at least one licence is confirmed on the regulator’s own register.
• Minus 0.5 when the main international website is operated by an entity rated 2.0 or lower while the group holds a licence rated 3.0 or higher.
• Minus 1.0 when, in the last five years, a licence was withdrawn or cancelled, or a regulator warned about the broker’s own website.
• Minus 0.5 for any other regulator fine or enforcement action in the last five years.
• Regulator actions are counted when published on the official website of a regulator in a region we cover (the EU and EEA, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa and the United States), so that every broker is checked against the same set of regulators. Warnings about impostor websites that copy a broker’s name are not counted.

Costs and fee disclosure (23%)

Five checks of equal value: commissions published; overnight (swap) rates published; inactivity fee disclosed; deposit and withdrawal fees disclosed; currency conversion fee disclosed.

Risk and consumer information (18%)

Six checks of equal value: risk warning on the homepage; percentage of retail accounts losing money published; risk disclosure or key information documents available; negative balance protection stated; segregation of client funds stated; legal documents available without registration.

Customer support (12%)

Four checks of equal value: live chat; email; phone; support available around the clock on weekdays or longer.

Education and research (12%)

1.5 for an education section; 1.0 for content explaining trading risks; 1.0 for webinars or courses; 1.0 for market analysis; 0.5 for an economic calendar.

Website and user experience (6%)

1.5 for a legal documents page; 1.0 for a page listing fees; 1.5 for the legal entity and licence shown in the website footer. The total, at most 4.0, is scaled to 5.

Each category is kept between 0 and 5 and rounded to one decimal. The overall score is the weighted average of the six categories.

Research process

1. Verify regulatory authorisation directly on official regulator registers, recording licence numbers and retrieval dates.
2. Collect published pricing, legal documents and product information from the broker’s official website.
3. Review publicly accessible product information and materials.
4. Score each category against the documented rubric, independently of any commercial relationship. Brands operated by the publisher are excluded from this step: their scores are set by the publisher and labelled wherever they appear.
5. Publish with sources, retrieval dates and a public update history.

Sources we use

Facts are collected from official broker websites and legal documents, and from official regulator registers and warning lists. Other review websites are not used as a source of facts. Information that cannot be verified is left out.

Independence safeguards

• Brands the publisher operates carry scores set by the publisher. They are labelled on the review and in the comparison table, and they are not calculated with our rubric. Every other reviewed broker, including brands commercially related to the publisher, is scored with the same rubric and evidence standards.
• The facts behind every review, including those for brands the publisher operates, are recorded from the same checklist and published with their sources.
• Material relationships between the publisher and a reviewed broker are disclosed within the relevant review and listed on our About Us and Policies page.
• Broker listings are sorted by overall score by default, highest first, and readers can sort by name instead. Listing positions are never sold.
• Sponsored content is labelled at the start and never influences editorial review scores.
• Reviews contain no external broker links, affiliate tracking or registration paths.
• Strengths and limitations receive equal visual prominence; negative findings are never hidden.

Methodology change log

• Version 1.0, effective at launch: Initial published methodology with seven weighted categories, a published scoring rubric, regulation by region and legal entity, and minimum deposits excluded from cards and comparisons.
• Version 1.1, 15 September 2026: Scoring reduced to six weighted categories (weights now 29%, 23%, 18%, 12%, 12% and 6%), five cost-disclosure checks instead of six, and every score calculated with the rubric. All brokers were re-scored under this version.
• Version 1.2, 24 September 2026: The language checks were removed from Customer support and Website and user experience, where the same fact was counted twice, and both categories were rescaled to a maximum of 5. All brokers were re-scored under this version. Scores for brands operated by the publisher are now set by the publisher and labelled wherever they appear, instead of being calculated with the rubric.