How We Keep Our Reviews Honest
The Broker Report exists to publish broker research traders can actually trust. This page explains the editorial rules behind that promise: how we test, how we score, how we correct mistakes, and how we keep commercial relationships from contaminating the work.
Readers first
Our job is to help traders make better decisions, not to help brokers look good. That sounds obvious, but in this niche it gets compromised all the time.
Evidence over access
We do not trade coverage, softer language, or higher scores for advertising budgets, affiliate deals, interviews, or early access to products.
Consistency over convenience
Every broker is reviewed against the same framework. If a broker is difficult to verify, slow to process withdrawals, or vague about fees, that counts against them.
Transparency over spin
We disclose how we make money, how we test, what we can verify, and what we cannot. If something is estimated, sampled, or pending confirmation, we say so.
Commercial relationships do not set editorial outcomes
We may earn revenue through affiliate partnerships with some brokers featured on this site. That is disclosed clearly because hiding the business model would be shady. But disclosure alone is not enough. The real question is whether money changes the work. Our answer is no.
Brokers cannot buy a better rating, a softer review, preferred placement in a ranking, or the removal of negative findings. We do not sell review outcomes. We do not freeze ratings to protect relationships. We do not accept editorial instructions from commercial partners.
If a broker performs poorly in testing, has weak protections, or creates friction around withdrawals, that will show up in the score and in the copy — whether we earn from that broker or not.
No affiliate neutrality theater. We do not pretend money is irrelevant. It funds the site. What matters is that the scoring model, testing workflow, and editorial judgment are kept separate from partnership decisions — and that poor performers do not get protected because they pay.
What a review must include before we trust it ourselves
A broker review built from marketing pages and recycled specs is worthless. Our baseline is hands-on testing backed by source verification.
Open and verify a real account wherever feasible, including KYC and onboarding checks.
Fund the account with our own money and test at least one live deposit route.
Place trades in live market conditions rather than relying only on demo environments or broker-provided screenshots.
Test platform quality across web, desktop, and mobile where those products are offered.
Measure costs using observed spreads, commissions, swap charges, non-trading fees, and withdrawal friction.
Contact support across available channels and judge both speed and substance, not just whether someone replies.
Verify regulatory claims directly against primary regulator registers and official corporate disclosures.
Test withdrawals and document delays, limits, rejections, or extra verification requests.
How we verify facts before publication
We treat broker claims as unverified until they can be checked against primary sources, product documentation, live testing, or both. Regulatory claims are checked against official registers. Fee claims are compared against observed platform data and published schedules. Platform claims are checked inside the platform, not copied from a landing page.
We also distinguish between facts, measured observations, and editorial judgment. A withdrawal taking three business days is a fact. Calling that acceptable or frustrating is judgment. Both can belong in a review, but they are not the same thing.
When a broker's information is incomplete, contradictory, or impossible to verify, we do not smooth it over. Unclear disclosures, vague entity structures, and slippery fee language are themselves useful signals for readers.
How ratings work
A rating is not a vibe check. It is a structured output from the testing and weighting framework published on our methodology page.
Weighted categories
Overall ratings are produced from weighted category scores. Regulation and trading costs matter more than nice-to-have extras because they matter more to real traders.
No affiliate uplift
Affiliate status has a weight of exactly zero in our model. A partner can rank badly. A non-partner can rank highly. That is the whole point.
Knockout standards
Some failures override everything else. If we cannot verify core regulation, or the withdrawal process breaks down, strong marketing and slick UX do not rescue the score.
Ratings can move
Scores are not permanent. If a broker improves execution, lowers fees, or expands protections, the rating can rise. If conditions worsen, the rating can fall.
For the detailed scoring framework, category weights, and re-test schedule, read our Methodology page. This editorial policy explains the rules around the work; the methodology page explains the scoring mechanics.
Update cadence
Broker conditions change too often for a publish-once review model. Fees move. Legal entities change. Platforms improve or deteriorate. Our policy is to revisit important broker information on a recurring schedule and move faster when something material breaks.
Corrections policy
If we get a material fact wrong, we correct it. Quietly leaving a known error live is lazy and untrustworthy.
We investigate credible correction requests from readers, brokers, regulators, and other sources. Evidence matters. Screenshots, policy documents, regulator links, fee schedules, and dated account records are far more useful than broad complaints.
When a correction affects a rating, ranking, or conclusion, we update the page accordingly rather than stapling a note onto stale analysis. If the original conclusion no longer holds, we change it.
How to report an error
Send correction requests or evidence of outdated information through our report page or contact us at editor@thebrokerreport.com.
Useful reports include the broker name, the affected page URL, what looks wrong, and the evidence supporting the correction. If the issue is urgent — for example a regulatory suspension or withdrawal failure pattern — say so plainly.
What this policy covers
This editorial policy applies to broker reviews, best-broker rankings, comparisons, scam-check content, and other research-led pages published by The Broker Report. It should be read alongside our Methodology, Affiliate Disclosure, and Terms of Use.