Methodology
What we check, what counts as evidence, and the claims we refuse to make.
What an examination covers
- Public regulatory registers, checked by licence number where a provider states one.
- The provider’s own published terms, fee schedule and withdrawal conditions.
- Documented, reproducible observations — screenshots, archived pages, dated captures.
- Independent reporting and enforcement notices, cited and linked.
Evidence standard
A claim is publishable only if a reader can check it from a source we link. We do not publish licence numbers, custody claims, execution statistics or client-fund arrangements that we could not confirm on a regulator’s register or in the provider’s own binding documentation. Where a claim is unconfirmed, the page says so in those words.
No scores, no rankings, no affiliate ordering
We publish no star ratings, numerical scores, “best broker” tables or “recommended” badges. Such labels imply a suitability judgement we cannot make for an unknown reader, and they are the mechanism through which most comparison sites monetise placement. Ordering on this site is chronological or alphabetical, never commercial.
Archived examinations
Reviews imported from the 2017–2020 archive were written under a previous editorial process. They are preserved for the record, labelled as unverified against the current standard, and carry no rating. They will be re-examined or retired, not silently updated.
Right of reply
Providers may dispute anything published about them by writing to [Required from publisher: editorial contact address]. Substantiated corrections are made promptly and logged publicly on the corrections page.
Funding and conflicts
Current funding arrangements: [Required from publisher: confirmed funding model — affiliate, advertising, none]. Any commercial relationship affecting a page will be disclosed on that page in plain language, above the fold.