How We Rate and Compare Brokers: InvestingPlatformGuide's Methodology

Most broker comparison sites publish ratings without explaining how those numbers were produced. A broker rated 4.5 out of 5 on one site might score 3.8 on another, and readers are left guessing which figure to trust. That gap exists because methodology is rarely disclosed.

At InvestingPlatformGuide, our broker review methodology is fully documented and publicly available. Every score you see on this site traces back to a defined data point, a recorded test, or a verifiable regulatory check. If a broker earns a 4.6, you can read exactly which categories pushed that number up and which ones held it back.

This page covers:

• The seven categories used in every broker evaluation
• The percentage weight each category carries in the final score
• How raw data is gathered, including live spread sampling and demo account testing
• Our editorial independence policy and how affiliate relationships are disclosed
• A changelog showing when the framework was last revised

The goal is simple: you should be able to audit our conclusions. If something looks off, you have the framework to challenge it.

Every broker reviewed on InvestingPlatformGuide is evaluated across seven standardized categories. These categories were selected because they represent the factors that most directly affect a trader's real-world experience, from the cost of each trade to the quality of support when something goes wrong.

1. Trading Costs

Trading Costs covers spreads, commissions, swap rates (overnight financing charges), and any inactivity or account maintenance fees. This is the category beginners most frequently underestimate. A broker with a $0 minimum deposit but a 3.0-pip EUR/USD spread will cost significantly more over time than one charging a $100 minimum with a 0.6-pip spread.

2. Platform Quality

Platform Quality assesses the trading interface itself: charting tools, order execution speed, available order types (market, limit, stop-loss), mobile app responsiveness, and stability under high-volatility conditions. For beginners, ease of use and demo account access are weighted heavily within this sub-category.

3. Regulation and Safety

Regulation and Safety verifies each broker's licensing status against official regulatory databases. Regulators evaluated include the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), CySEC (Cyprus, with EU passporting rights), and DFSA (UAE), among others. Offshore registrations in jurisdictions like SVG or Vanuatu receive lower sub-scores due to reduced investor protections.

4. Asset Range

Asset Range counts and categorises the instruments available: forex pairs, indices, commodities, equities, ETFs, and cryptocurrencies. Raw instrument count matters less than breadth across asset classes, since a broker offering 10,000 obscure CFDs but no major indices scores lower than one offering 500 well-curated instruments across all major categories.

5. Deposit and Withdrawal

Deposit and Withdrawal examines minimum deposit thresholds, supported payment methods (cards, bank wire, e-wallets like Skrill and Neteller), processing times, and fee structures on both deposits and withdrawals. Currency conversion costs are factored in here, as these represent a significant hidden expense for international traders funding accounts in a non-native currency.

6. Customer Support

Customer Support is tested through structured contact attempts across live chat, email, and phone channels. Response time, accuracy of answers, and availability hours are all recorded. Multilingual support availability is noted given our global readership.

7. Research and Education

Research and Education evaluates the quality and depth of learning resources: video courses, webinars, written tutorials, market analysis tools, economic calendars, and glossaries. For a beginner-focused audience, the presence of a structured learning path (rather than just a blog) significantly improves a broker's score in this category.

The weighting structure reflects what research consistently shows matters most to retail traders, particularly those newer to the markets. Trading Costs carries the largest single weight at 25% because cost drag compounds over time. A trader executing 50 round-trip trades per month at an average spread of 2.0 pips versus 0.8 pips is paying roughly 60% more in transaction costs annually, all else being equal.

Regulation and Safety shares the 20% weight with Platform Quality. This reflects a deliberate editorial position: a broker offering excellent tools but operating under a weak regulatory framework represents a structural risk that no feature set can offset. Investor protection schemes, such as the FCA's Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) covering up to £85,000 per client, or CySEC's Investor Compensation Fund covering up to €20,000, are concrete financial safeguards that matter especially to beginners who may not fully understand counterparty risk.

Research and Education and Customer Support each carry 7.5%. These are important, but a broker with outstanding educational content and mediocre spreads is still a more expensive choice than one with moderate resources and tight costs. The weights reflect that priority ordering.

These weights are reviewed annually. The current structure was last updated in January 2026 following a reader survey and an internal audit of how well the previous framework predicted user satisfaction scores reported in third-party reviews.

InvestingPlatformGuide operates an affiliate model: when a reader clicks through to a broker and opens an account, we may receive a referral fee. This is standard practice across financial comparison sites and is how the platform funds its research operations. But the existence of affiliate relationships raises a legitimate question: do commercial incentives distort the scores?

The short answer is no, and here is the structural reason why.

Separation of Research and Commercial Teams

The analysts who produce broker scores have no visibility into affiliate fee rates and no financial incentive tied to individual broker performance on the site. Commercial agreements are handled by a separate team. Scores are calculated using the weighted formula described above, applied uniformly to all brokers regardless of whether a commercial relationship exists.

Affiliate Disclosure on Every Review Page

Every broker review page on InvestingPlatformGuide carries a clear affiliate disclosure statement near the top of the page. Readers are informed before they engage with any content that referral relationships may exist. This disclosure is not buried in a footer or hidden behind a link.

Brokers Cannot Pay for Higher Scores

No broker can purchase a higher rating, a more favourable ranking position, or the removal of negative findings from a review. If a broker's spread data shows consistently wide pricing, that data is published. If a regulatory check reveals a disciplinary notice, that is noted in the review. Commercial relationships do not create editorial exceptions.

A Practical Example

Libertex (rated 4.4 on this site) has a commercial relationship with InvestingPlatformGuide. That rating of 4.4 reflects its actual performance across the seven scoring categories: strong platform quality and competitive trading costs offset by a relatively limited asset range compared to brokers like IG Markets (rated 4.6) or Pepperstone (rated 4.5). The score was not adjusted upward to reflect the commercial relationship, and the comparative disadvantages are disclosed in the full review.

The final score for each broker is a weighted average calculated as follows: each of the seven category scores (on a 0-5 scale) is multiplied by its respective weight, and the products are summed. The result is expressed as a decimal to one place, producing scores like 4.4 or 4.6.

Ranking order on comparison pages reflects these scores in descending order. Where two brokers share the same score - for example, Libertex, Saxo Bank, and Capital Com all carry a 4.4 rating - secondary ranking factors apply in this order:

• Regulation tier: Brokers regulated by Tier 1 authorities (FCA, ASIC, CySEC) rank above those with only offshore licences at the same overall score
• Trading Costs sub-score: Lower-cost brokers rank higher when overall scores are tied
• Recency of review: More recently reviewed brokers rank higher to ensure data currency

Scores are not curved or normalised against the current broker set. A broker scoring 3.3 (as RoboForex currently does) receives that score because its raw data across the seven categories produces that weighted average, not because it is being ranked relative to other brokers in the set.

Score Revision Policy

Broker scores are reviewed on a rolling 12-month cycle, with interim updates triggered by material changes: regulatory action, platform overhaul, significant fee restructuring, or verified user-reported issues. When a score changes, the review page notes the previous score, the new score, and the reason for the revision.

The table below shows the current overall ratings for all brokers featured on InvestingPlatformGuide, derived from the methodology described on this page. Ratings reflect data collected and verified as of Q1 2026.

Ratings are calculated using the weighted methodology described on this page. Regulatory information is verified against official regulator databases as of Q1 2026. Minimum deposits may vary by account type, country, and payment method.

No scoring system is perfect. Ours has known limitations that readers should factor into how they use our ratings.

Spread Data Is Time-Bound

Live spread sampling captures conditions during specific windows. Spreads widen significantly during news events, low-liquidity periods, and market open/close transitions. Our sampled averages represent typical conditions but will not reflect worst-case execution scenarios. Traders placing orders around major economic releases (NFP, CPI, central bank decisions) should expect spreads wider than any published average.

Demo Accounts May Not Mirror Live Execution

Demo account testing provides a useful baseline for platform assessment, but execution quality on live accounts can differ. Factors including real liquidity, requotes, and slippage under genuine market stress are not fully replicable in a demo environment. Where user-reported live execution data is available from credible third-party sources, we incorporate it as a supplementary data point.

Regulatory Status Changes

Broker regulation is not static. Licences can be suspended, withdrawn, or upgraded. We verify regulatory status at the time of each review, but readers should independently confirm current status using official regulator databases before opening an account. Links to the relevant regulatory registers are included in each broker review.

Individual Trader Fit Varies

A broker scoring 4.6 overall may be a poor fit for a specific trader's needs. A scalper prioritising ultra-tight spreads and fast execution might find a 4.3-rated broker more suitable than a 4.6-rated one with higher costs but stronger educational content. Our scores reflect aggregate performance across all categories, not optimisation for any single use case. Filter tools on the site allow you to weight categories according to your own priorities.

Version 3.0 - January 2026 (Current)

• Research and Education weight increased from 5% to 7.5% following reader survey data showing education quality as a top-three priority for 68% of respondents
• Customer Support weight increased from 5% to 7.5% with the addition of structured response accuracy scoring
• Asset Range weight reduced from 15% to 10% after analysis showed raw instrument count had low correlation with user satisfaction scores
• Regulatory database verification process updated to include real-time cross-referencing with FCA, ASIC, and CySEC databases
• Spread sampling protocol expanded from 20 to 30 data points per session per instrument
• Secondary ranking tiebreaker criteria formalised and published for the first time

Version 2.1 - March 2025

• Deposit and Withdrawal category expanded to include currency conversion fee assessment
• Demo account testing period standardised at 10 days across all broker evaluations
• Affiliate disclosure placement moved from footer to above-the-fold on all review pages

Version 2.0 - September 2024

• Seven-category framework introduced, replacing the previous five-category model
• Platform Quality split from Trading Costs into a separate category
• Regulation and Safety elevated to 20% weight (previously 15%)

Version 1.0 - January 2023

• Original methodology launched with five scoring categories
• Initial broker set of eight brokers reviewed under the framework