How we review brokers: CompareFX methodology and editorial standards
The 8-criteria rubric, testing process, author credentials, and conflict-of-interest disclosure behind every CompareFX broker review and head-to-head comparison.
1. Why this page exists
Broker review sites have a credibility problem. Most rank brokers in commission order, hide their testing process, and refuse to disclose who is behind the keyboard. We built CompareFX to be the opposite: a comparison site where the scoring system is published, the trade-offs are stated plainly, and the editorial line stays the same whether a broker pays us or not.
This page is the spine of that promise. It explains exactly how we score, exactly what we test, who writes the reviews, where our data comes from, and how often we refresh it. If anything on a comparison page seems to contradict this methodology, that is a bug we want to hear about. Email editorial@comparefx.co.
2. The 8-criteria scoring rubric
Every broker we review is scored on the same eight criteria. The weights are fixed and total 100%. We do not adjust the weights to suit a particular broker, a particular niche, or a particular commercial relationship.
| Criterion | Weight | What we score |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation | 25% | Tier-1 licences (FCA, ASIC, BaFin, MAS, SEC/CFTC), client-fund segregation, investor compensation scheme membership, regulator action history. |
| Costs | 20% | EUR/USD typical spread, commission per round-turn lot, overnight swap rates, inactivity fees, deposit and withdrawal fees. |
| Platforms | 15% | MT4, MT5, cTrader, proprietary platform quality, mobile app rating, charting depth, API access for systematic traders. |
| Instruments | 10% | Number of FX pairs, indices, commodities, shares, crypto CFDs (where legal). Breadth and tradability, not raw count. |
| Execution | 10% | Average fill speed, slippage on news events, requote rate, published execution statistics (where available). |
| Education | 10% | Quality of beginner material, webinar cadence, demo-account terms, original research vs. recycled content. |
| Support | 5% | Live-chat response time, language coverage, account-manager access, complaint-resolution track record. |
| Withdrawal | 5% | Time to receive funds (bank wire, card, e-wallet), withdrawal fees, identity-check friction, reported delays. |
Each criterion is scored on a 1–5 scale by the lead reviewer, sanity-checked by a second editor, and weighted into a single overall score out of 5. Where two brokers score within 0.2 of each other on the overall, we publish a tie verdict by use case instead of forcing a winner. Real readers have different priorities, and a 0.1-point gap rarely tells the full story.
3. How we test
The rubric only works if the inputs are real. Here is what testing looks like in practice.
Demo accounts on every broker
We open a demo account with every broker we cover. Demo accounts let us evaluate the platform, charting, mobile app, and order types without committing capital. We note any meaningful difference between the demo and live environment in the review itself, because demo execution is often unrealistically clean.
Live test trades, where budget allows
For brokers covered in our head-to-head comparisons, we fund a live account with the minimum deposit and place a small number of round-turn test trades on EUR/USD during London open and during a scheduled news release. This lets us observe real spreads, real slippage, and real withdrawal mechanics. We do not have the budget to live-test every broker every quarter — see section 7 on how we keep cost data fresh between live tests.
Regulator licence verification
Every regulatory claim a broker makes is checked against the public regulator register. We verify the licence number, the entity name on the licence, and the regulator's current authorisation status. If a broker advertises an FCA licence and the FCA register shows the licence is held by a different group entity, we say so on the review page.
Independent third-party checks
Spreads and execution claims are cross-checked against at least one independent source — typically a public broker-comparison aggregator, the broker's own published execution statistics, and reader-reported numbers from established trading communities. We do not rely on a single source for any data point that materially affects a broker's score.
4. Who writes our reviews
Anonymous review sites are a red flag in this industry. Here is who is on our editorial team and what qualifies them to score brokers.
Every review carries a "Last reviewed by" line at the top with the date of the most recent editorial pass. If you spot a factual error, email editorial@comparefx.co with the page URL and we will correct and republish, with a visible changelog entry, within five working days.
5. What we do not do
A few practices are common in this space and we have ruled them out as a matter of policy.
- We do not accept payment to lift a score. Affiliate commissions are paid on accounts opened, not on rankings. If a broker offers a higher commission rate in exchange for moving up our list, the answer is no, and we will name them on this page.
- We do not run "exclusive bonus" pages that overstate broker quality. If a bonus is real and material, we link to it. If a bonus is a marketing wrapper around a worse trading product, we say so.
- We do not promise profit. Trading CFDs and forex is high-risk. Between 51% and 89% of retail accounts lose money with most regulated brokers. No methodology, no rubric, and no broker choice eliminates that risk.
- We do not write reviews for brokers we cannot legally cover. Some brokers do not accept clients from regulated jurisdictions for compliance reasons. If we cannot test the live product responsibly, we do not publish a score.
6. Conflict-of-interest disclosure
CompareFX earns commissions when a reader opens and funds an account with certain brokers through tracked links on our comparison and review pages. We disclose this near the top of every page that contains affiliate links. The brokers with whom we hold an active affiliate relationship at the time of writing are:
- Exness (active programme, affiliate code c_b89q18cb0c)
- XM (active programme, affiliate ID 1302294)
- Several additional brokers (Pepperstone, eToro, Plus500, IC Markets, IG, CMC Markets, FxPro, FXTM) are covered editorially while their affiliate programmes are pending. Links to these brokers currently point to their public homepages and earn us nothing.
This list is reviewed and republished at the start of every calendar quarter. The next refresh is scheduled for 1 July 2026.
None of our affiliate partners review our copy before publication. None of them are shown a draft of their own review. The only contact between editorial and a broker before publication is verification of factual data points (licence numbers, headline spreads) by email, with the response logged in our internal records.
7. Data sources and refresh cadence
Broker data goes stale fast. Spreads move, regulators issue new authorisations, platforms ship updates. Here is how we keep CompareFX current.
Primary sources
- Public regulator registers (FCA Register, ASIC Connect, BaFin database, MAS Financial Institutions Directory, CySEC register, FSA Seychelles register, and equivalents).
- Each broker's published fee schedule and execution statistics, dated and screenshot-archived on our review date.
- Live demo and live test-trade observations on the dates noted in each review.
- Independent third-party comparison aggregators, used only as a cross-check on our own observations.
Refresh cadence
Every broker review and head-to-head comparison page is reviewed in full at least once per calendar quarter. Pages are refreshed sooner if:
- A regulator changes the broker's authorisation status.
- The broker materially changes its fee schedule, leverage cap, or platform offering.
- A reader flags a factual error that we verify.
The most recent review date is printed at the top of every comparison and review page. Any page older than 120 days carries a visible "scheduled for refresh" notice and is deprioritised in our internal navigation until the refresh ships.
8. Risk warning
Trading forex and CFDs is high-risk. Between 51% and 89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading these instruments with regulated brokers. You should consider whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money before opening an account. CompareFX content is for information only. It is not financial advice, it is not personal recommendation, and it does not consider your objectives, financial situation, or needs. If you are unsure whether forex or CFD trading is suitable for you, seek independent advice from a qualified professional.
9. Contact and corrections
If you spot a factual error, want to flag a missing broker, or want to challenge a score, email editorial@comparefx.co. Verified corrections are published within five working days with a visible changelog entry on the affected page. We do not respond to demands to remove negative-but-accurate review content from brokers or their representatives.