Our methodology
A trust test you can inspect.
Our process is designed to make broker research more legible. It is a methodology for editorial review—not investment advice, a guarantee, or a substitute for your own due diligence.
How to read this page
We distinguish between facts we can verify, claims that need confirmation, and editorial judgment. Broker conditions and regulatory status can change, so readers should independently verify material details before acting.
- 01
Regulation verification
We check claimed permissions against relevant public registers where applicable, including FCA, ASIC, CySEC, and NFA records. A regulator listing is one input, not a guarantee of trading outcomes.
- 02
Client-money safeguards
We review how a broker describes segregation, custody, entity structure, and protections available to clients. Terms vary by jurisdiction and account type.
- 03
Cost and spread transparency
We look for clear, current explanations of spreads, commissions, swaps, financing, and other material charges rather than relying on headline claims.
- 04
Withdrawal experience
We inspect published funding and withdrawal policies, conditions, fee disclosures, and support information. A stated policy is not a promise of an individual outcome.
- 05
Platform and access checks
We check which platforms, account types, instruments, and country-specific access details are disclosed, and note where availability must be confirmed directly.
- 06
Complaint-pattern review
We look for recurring themes in credible public sources and regulatory information, separating patterns worth further scrutiny from isolated, unverified anecdotes.
What our process does not do
It does not predict returns, recommend a trade, verify every personal experience, or make leveraged trading low-risk. Our review is a starting point for independent research.
Editorial independence
We may earn commissions from qualifying referrals, but commercial relationships do not guarantee inclusion, approval, or position in a comparison.