fxnumbersEN · EnglishChoose your residence or explore the entities behind the brands.
Where do you live? · Select your home country using the circles. We show the company and conditions verified for residents there.
Published observations and completed editorial assessments replace the demo inputs as coverage grows. Scores update using the published method.
Current data coverage: 4% of planned weight. Coverage describes our evidence, not broker quality. Method →
Market priority: UK, US, Singapore and Hong Kong lead by FX turnover in the BIS 2025 survey. Remaining countries follow an editorial priority order, not a statistical ranking. This order does not change rating weights.
Colours show how much information we have — not whether a broker is good or bad.
Data coverage: 4%
IG Markets Limited
Regulatory jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Local retail FX CFD offer documented on the primary country page. Individual eligibility remains subject to onboarding.
Verified 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Residence mapping source ↗Data: 4.9/5 × 60%
Editorial review: 76.5% × 40%
Data coverage: 4%
OANDA Europe Limited
Regulatory jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Local retail FX CFD offer documented on the primary country page. Individual eligibility remains subject to onboarding.
Verified 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Residence mapping source ↗Data: 2.9/5 × 60%
Editorial review: 88.75% × 40%
Data coverage: 4%
Pepperstone Limited
Regulatory jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Local retail FX CFD offer documented on the primary country page. Individual eligibility remains subject to onboarding.
Verified 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Residence mapping source ↗Data: 4.3/5 × 60%
Editorial review: 86.5% × 40%
Comparing all displayed brokers.
First convert the data score to a percentage. Add its 60% contribution to the editorial percentage’s 40% contribution. A simulated 50% editorial input contributes 20 percentage points. Real assessments use the published criterion weights. Displayed inputs are rounded; contributions use the unrounded data score.
Data component: 4.9/5
Editorial input: 76.5% (editorial review)
(4.9 ÷ 5 × 60) + (76.5 ÷ 100 × 40)
≈ 58.4 + 30.6
= 89.0% = 4.5/5
Assessment scope: traders:gb
Scope: UK resident offers; desktop public-information checklist uk-documentary-1.0, collected with AI assistance on 12 September 2026. No human reviewer, account opening, execution testing or mobile certification is claimed. A 100 checklist score means the named disclosure checks passed, not a perfect broker. Brand signal: Trustpilot 3.7/5 -> (3.7-1)/4*100 = 67.5. Mixed products/countries; not UK-only feedback. Source: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/ig.com Navigation: 3/4 checks. Cost headings, legal and support routes identified. Product choices were exposed as list items rather than semantic tabs in the inspected accessibility tree, so the semantic-controls check did not pass. This is a narrow accessibility observation, not a claim that switching is impossible. Clarity: 3/4 checks. Product basis, fee categories and conditions were distinguishable. The minimum-spread table labels its values bps, creating a unit ambiguity for a reader comparing pip-based FX quotes; the unambiguous-units check did not pass. Source: https://www.ig.com/uk/charges Documents: 4/4 discoverability checks. Local companies, customer agreements, complaints and execution-policy routes identified. Sources: https://www.ig.com/uk/terms-and-agreements https://www.ig.com/uk/customer-agreement Limits: cookies can obstruct first access; no support contact was made. Document contents were sampled for identity and scope, not legally audited.
Editorial evidence ↗Reviews 67.5% · Navigation 75% · Clarity 75% · Documents 100%
Data component: 2.9/5
Editorial input: 88.8% (editorial review)
(2.9 ÷ 5 × 60) + (88.75 ÷ 100 × 40)
≈ 34.4 + 35.5
= 69.9% = 3.5/5
Assessment scope: traders:gb
Scope: UK resident offers; desktop public-information checklist uk-documentary-1.0, collected with AI assistance on 12 September 2026. No human reviewer, account opening, execution testing or mobile certification is claimed. A 100 checklist score means the named disclosure checks passed, not a perfect broker. Brand signal: Trustpilot 3.5/5 -> (3.5-1)/4*100 = 62.5. The global profile has country subprofiles; this audit consistently uses the global profile for all three brands. It is not UK-specific sentiment. Source: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.oanda.com Navigation: 4/4 checks. Descriptive fee headings, legal and support routes, and a directly structured cost page without product-tab dependency were observed. Clarity: 4/4 checks. The inspected page distinguishes fee types, sets out inactivity conditions and conversion basis, identifies v20/v20 MT4 applicability and links financing/spread information. This does not mean the fees are low. Source: https://www.oanda.com/uk-en/trading/our-charges/ Documents: 4/4 discoverability checks. OANDA Europe Limited is identified; contract, complaints and execution-policy links are listed. The sampled terms identify the company and CFD/spread-bet scope. Sources: https://www.oanda.com/uk-en/legal/ https://legal.oanda.com/oel/fxtrade_customer_agreement_oel/en Limits: no account onboarding, support response or mobile journey was tested. The score measures this checklist, not full usability.
Editorial evidence ↗Reviews 62.5% · Navigation 100% · Clarity 100% · Documents 100%
Data component: 4.3/5
Editorial input: 86.5% (editorial review)
(4.3 ÷ 5 × 60) + (86.5 ÷ 100 × 40)
≈ 52.0 + 34.6
= 86.6% = 4.3/5
Assessment scope: traders:gb
Scope: UK resident offers; desktop public-information checklist uk-documentary-1.0, collected with AI assistance on 12 September 2026. No human reviewer, account opening, execution testing or mobile certification is claimed. A 100 checklist score means the named disclosure checks passed, not a perfect broker. Brand signal: Trustpilot 4.2/5 -> (4.2-1)/4*100 = 80. Global profile, not a UK customer sample. Source: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/pepperstone.com Navigation: 4/4 checks. Cost headings, legal/support routes and semantic tab controls were exposed. A country prompt was encountered from the audit environment in Italy; this is reported as context, not attributed to all UK visitors. Clarity: 3/4 checks. Standard/Razor/spread-betting pricing, additional charges and international-withdrawal exceptions were distinguishable. The cTrader explanation uses per unit while adjacent pricing uses lots; the unambiguous-unit-basis check did not pass. Source: https://pepperstone.com/en-gb/trading/costs-and-fees Documents: 4/4 discoverability checks. Pepperstone Limited, UK contract, complaints and execution policy identified in the legal hub. A costs PDF was also retrieved. Sources: https://pepperstone.com/en-gb/about-us/policies/legal https://eu-assets.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltd74737b907a31bbb/bltc19314db598b7ab0/UK_Legal_Costs_and_Charges.pdf Limits: this browser check resolved the earlier full-page research-tool failure. No account onboarding, support response or mobile journey was tested.
Editorial evidence ↗Reviews 80% · Navigation 100% · Clarity 75% · Documents 100%
These criterion weights are managed in the editorial database. They apply to completed editorial assessments; simulated inputs remain explicitly labelled and are not derived from these criteria.
Published documentary audits have dated observations, cited sources and explicit scope. See the UK audit and checklist. Review-platform scores alone are not editorial assessments. Brand-wide review evidence must not be presented as jurisdiction-specific evidence, and evidence already scored in the data component must not be counted twice.
The same residence and parameters for all brands; contracting entities may be regulated in different countries. Missing values are never zero.
(4.9) ÷ 1 = 4.9/5
United Kingdom 4.9/5 · weight 100.0%
(2.9) ÷ 1 = 2.9/5
United Kingdom 2.9/5 · weight 100.0%
(4.3) ÷ 1 = 4.3/5
United Kingdom 4.3/5 · weight 100.0%
Display values are rounded; calculations use unrounded inputs.
Only Trading costs currently has usable evidence. Other dimensions are excluded, not scored zero.
Trading costs · partial
4.9/5Effective dimension weight: 100% of the partial score.
Trading costs · partial
2.9/5Effective dimension weight: 100% of the partial score.
Trading costs · partial
4.3/5Effective dimension weight: 100% of the partial score.
Each planned dimension has 20% of the data-component weight (the data component itself has 60% of the combined rating). The partial score normalises only shared available weights.
Open a parameter to see each rated broker, including conversion, weight and source. Unrated brokers have no contribution.
Contribution: 4.7 × 50.0% = 2.4
Original input: 0.6 pips
clamp(1 + 4 × (2 − 0.6) ÷ (2 − 0.5), 1, 5) = 4.7/5
IG Markets Limited
Cash FX CFD advertised minimum EUR/USD spread: 0.6 pips (points). Spread-only pricing; financing and other charges excluded. The historical average spread also displayed by IG Australia is not used.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record ig-gb-eurusd-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
Contribution: 4.7 × 50.0% = 2.4
Original input: 0.6 pips
clamp(1 + 4 × (2 − 0.6) ÷ (2 − 0.5), 1, 5) = 4.7/5
OANDA Europe Limited
Standard spread-only EUR/USD CFD pricing, advertised from 0.6 pips. Raw pricing excluded. Financing and other charges excluded; not a realised average.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record oanda-gb-eurusd-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
Contribution: 3.7 × 50.0% = 1.8
Original input: 1 pips
clamp(1 + 4 × (2 − 1) ÷ (2 − 0.5), 1, 5) = 3.7/5
Pepperstone Limited
Standard account EUR/USD minimum spread: 1 pip. No FX commission on Standard. Razor and spread-betting pricing excluded. Financing and other charges excluded.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record pepperstone-gb-eurusd-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.
This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.
This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.
Contribution: 5.0 × 50.0% = 2.5
Original input: 0 · no inactivity charge stated
Policy rubric: no stated charge → 5/5. This does not measure fee amount or severity.
IG Markets Limited
The CFD section currently lists inactivity as free. Encoded 0: no inactivity charge stated. Australian inactivity terms have not been verified for this dataset.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record ig-gb-inactivity-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
Contribution: 1.0 × 50.0% = 0.5
Original input: 100 · inactivity charge stated
Policy rubric: stated charge → 1/5. This does not measure fee amount or severity.
OANDA Europe Limited
Monthly inactivity charge after 12 months without trading; no charge while open positions remain. Maximum GBP 20 per client per month across subaccounts, limited by available balance. Encoded 100: an inactivity charge is stated; this is not the charge amount.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record oanda-gb-inactivity-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
Contribution: 5.0 × 50.0% = 2.5
Original input: 0 · no inactivity charge stated
Policy rubric: no stated charge → 5/5. This does not measure fee amount or severity.
Pepperstone Limited
No account-keeping or inactivity charge currently stated. Accounts below 10 units of account currency with no trades for at least three months may be archived; reactivation is possible. Encoded 0: no inactivity charge stated.
Original source ↗Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record pepperstone-gb-inactivity-20260912
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.
