Every firm on this site receives a score out of 100 built from six weighted pillars: trust and track record (25 %), trading conditions (20 %), payouts (20 %), rules fairness (15 %), pricing and value (10 %), support and experience (10 %). The score is computed by a script from the data fields published on each profile — there is no manual rating step, which means no one can raise a score without changing a dated, sourced data point.
The whole formula is described below, including how missing data is handled and why some firms receive no score at all. Our commercial relationships have no input into it, and never will: that constraint is written into how the pipeline is built, not just into this page.
Firm age, public identification of its leadership, country of incorporation, documented incidents, and external rating weighted by review volume. A high rating on a hundred reviews counts for less than the same rating on ten thousand. Each documented incident removes points, capped at eighteen.
Number of platforms offered, breadth of the instrument range, and above all freedom of style: scalping, hedging, expert advisors, news trading, overnight and weekend positions. An explicit ban costs points; a missing field costs none.
Share of profits paid to the trader, delay before the first withdrawal, number of available payout methods and presence of a scaling plan. The delay weighs almost as much as the percentage, because a high split locked behind a long cycle is worth less than a moderate split paid quickly.
Drawdown type first — static, end-of-day trailing, hybrid, intraday trailing, in that order of preference — then absence of a consistency rule, absence of a time limit, and the minimum trading days requirement. This is the pillar that separates a playable firm from a rulebook designed to make you fail.
Price for a 100,000 account measured against the market median computed across our whole database, refund of the fee on first payout, and presence or absence of an activation fee. Price alone is never enough, which is why it carries only 10 %.
The hardest pillar to measure from public data. It combines external satisfaction, firm maturity and the depth of its community ecosystem. We weight it deliberately low because our sources here are weaker than elsewhere.
Every figure is read from the firm's own website — pricing pages, terms and conditions, FAQ — and dated on the day it was checked. Third-party comparison sites are used only to cross-check, never as a primary source: an error propagated between comparison sites stays an error.
When a value cannot be verified, it stays empty. The profile shows a dash flagged “not verified” rather than an estimate, and the scoring treats the sub-criterion as neutral. This is why some profiles look sparser than others: we prefer a visible gap to a plausible invention.
Top firms are rechecked weekly, the rest monthly, and any major rule change triggers an immediate update plus an entry in that firm's change history. The most recent verification across the whole database is .
This site is free. It carries public discount codes, and it will later carry affiliate links to some of the firms it lists. Those links are and will remain marked as partner links.
No firm can buy a position in a ranking, a higher score, or the removal of a negative element from its profile. Rankings are produced by applying a filter to the database and sorting the result — there is no editorial slot to sell. If a commercial relationship ever conflicted with a factual finding, the finding would be published.
Read the full affiliate disclosure.