Information Sources and Verification

Our broker reviews are based on a structured evidence-gathering process. We prioritize primary sources, identify the legal entity serving the client and cross-check material claims before they are used in a rating.

Sources Used in Broker Reviews

Wherever possible, information is verified using official, primary or otherwise reliable publicly available sources. These may include:

  • Official broker materials: — product pages, account specifications, pricing pages, client portals and published FAQs.
  • Regulatory records: — official registers, license records, authorized activities, public warnings and enforcement notices.
  • Legal documentation: — client agreements, terms of business, risk disclosures, order-execution policies, privacy notices and other contractual documents.
  • Pricing information: — spread disclosures, commission schedules, swap or financing information and non-trading fee tables.
  • Funding information: — deposit and withdrawal policies, supported payment methods, processing times, account currencies, fees and transaction limits.
  • Platform documentation: — supported trading platforms, device availability, technical specifications, automation features and third-party integrations.
  • Customer-support responses: — direct answers used to clarify information that is missing, unclear or inconsistent, where relevant.
  • Public company information: — corporate records, ownership disclosures, operating history and other credible market information.

How Information Is Verified

Our verification process is designed to reduce the risk of relying on incomplete, outdated or promotional information. The following principles guide the assessment:

  1. Identify the client-serving entity. We establish which legal entity is expected to open and maintain the account for the client being reviewed.
  2. Check the entity against official records. Where regulation is claimed, we look for the relevant entity, licence number, permissions and current status in the regulator’s official register.
  3. Compare multiple disclosures. Important details such as fees, withdrawal conditions and account terms are checked across the broker’s website, legal documents and other official materials.
  4. Distinguish advertised terms from typical conditions. Minimum spreads, headline bonuses and fastest-possible processing times are not treated as typical unless the supporting evidence justifies that conclusion.
  5. Record uncertainty rather than infer missing facts. Information that cannot be verified may be marked as unclear and can reduce the relevant transparency or category score.
  6. Resolve conflicts conservatively. When official sources disagree, greater weight is generally given to the current legal document, regulator record or more restrictive client-facing terms.

Legal Entity and Client Jurisdiction

Regulatory analysis is based on the legal entity that actually provides services to the client—not simply the strongest license held anywhere within the broker’s wider group.

A broker may operate several entities under the same brand. For example, one entity may be authorized in a highly regulated jurisdiction while clients from other countries are onboarded through a separate offshore company. In that case, the license, contractual terms and investor protections of the offshore entity are more relevant to the client-specific review.

Entity-specific assessment: Brand-level claims do not automatically apply to every client. The review should identify the contracting entity, applicable regulator, client jurisdiction and protections that are actually available.

Use of Customer-Support Responses

Customer-support responses may be used to clarify operational details, but they do not automatically override published legal terms or official regulatory records. Support testing may consider whether the broker answers directly, responds within a reasonable period and provides information that is consistent with its published policies.

Material inconsistencies between support responses and official documents may reduce the relevant transparency, support or trust score.

Missing, Conflicting or Outdated Information

When information is unavailable, contradictory or difficult to verify, the review should state the limitation clearly. Depending on its importance, uncertainty may affect a category score, trigger a score cap or prevent a firm conclusion.

Broker terms can change after publication. Reviews should therefore be updated when material changes are identified, including changes to regulation, pricing, platforms, funding rules, account conditions or promotional terms.

Reader reminder: Before opening or funding an account, traders should confirm important terms directly with the broker and, where appropriate, the relevant regulator.

Return to the complete broker review methodology.