fxnumbers
繁體中文

介面已翻譯。來源文字及部分方法詳情保留英文。

經紀商評分 · 探索各層詳情

一個評分。
每項依據。

選擇居住地，或探索品牌背後的實體。

你住在哪裏？ · 以圓圈選擇居住國家，查看適用於當地居民的已核實公司及條件。

試行 · 包含模擬編輯評估
如何成為完整評分

隨覆蓋率提高，已發佈觀察資料及完成的編輯評估將取代示範值。評分按已公佈方法更新。

Current data coverage: 2% of planned weight. Coverage describes our evidence, not broker quality. 評分方法 →

阿聯酋Calculated from: United Arab Emirates · 1 shared parameters · 1/11 listed residence marketsRated: IG. Single-broker evidence only; no peer comparison. Missing ratings are not zero. Criteria can differ between countries.
顏色指南 — 國家標記代表甚麼？

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.

顏色表示現有資訊量，而非經紀商的好壞。

  • 綠色 · 兩項指標均可用Both tracked measures are available for every displayed broker.
  • 黃色 · 部分資訊Some observations are available, but coverage differs or is incomplete.
  • 紅色 · 缺少評分數據Companies are identified, but their rating observations are not available yet.
  • 空心 · 核實中At least one company or offer still needs verification; no observations are available for this selection.
  • 灰色斜線 · 不適用We have verified that this option does not apply.
  • 方形外框 · 你的選擇The chosen country applies to all three brokers.

IG

示範 · 模擬編輯評估3.8/5

數據覆蓋率: 2%

評分組成及公司
For residents of United Arab Emirates

IG Limited
Regulatory jurisdiction: United Arab Emirates

Entity source ↗
Why this entity?

UAE CFD offer identifies IG Limited, DFSA F001780. Retail margin tiers are linked from the local Forex product details. Individual eligibility remains subject to onboarding.

Verified 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12

Residence mapping source ↗

Data: 4.7/5 × 60%
Editorial test: 50% × 40%

Data completeness - 2% of planned data weight2%

經紀商資料 → 為何是此評分？ → 加入比較 +

探索評分：計算、準則及來源

正在比較所有顯示的經紀商。

Score mix — data and editorial contribution
60% · Data40% · Editorial

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.

IG

Data component: 4.7/5

Editorial input: 50.0% (test only)

(4.7 ÷ 5 × 60) + (50 ÷ 100 × 40)
≈ 56.8 + 20.0
= 76.8% = 3.8/5

Assessment scope: brand

User-requested uniform test input. No editorial review has been performed; not derived from Trustpilot or a website audit.

Explore the data component →

OANDA

Data component: —/5

Editorial input: 50.0% (test only)

No combined score: both components are required.

Assessment scope: brand

User-requested uniform test input. No editorial review has been performed; not derived from Trustpilot or a website audit.

Explore the data component →

Pepperstone

Data component: —/5

Editorial input: 50.0% (test only)

No combined score: both components are required.

Assessment scope: brand

User-requested uniform test input. No editorial review has been performed; not derived from Trustpilot or a website audit.

Explore the data component →

Editorial review — published weights

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.

Public review evidence, including Trustpilot30% of editorial
Website navigation and usability25%
Clarity of pricing, conditions and information30%
Visibility of the contracting company and key documents15%

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.

01 · Data component: Residence & entity — where the rating comes from

The same residence and parameters for all brands; contracting entities may be regulated in different countries. Missing values are never zero.

IG

(4.7) ÷ 1 = 4.7/5

阿聯酋 4.7/5 · weight 100.0%

OANDA

No common set to average.

Pepperstone

No common set to average.

Display values are rounded; calculations use unrounded inputs.

02 · Dimensions — what is assessed

Only Trading costs currently has usable evidence. Other dimensions are excluded, not scored zero.

Trading costsPartial · 10% of cost weight availableOpen cost parameters ↓
Client experienceNo comparable evidence
Funding experienceNo comparable evidence
Service responseNo comparable evidence
Digital experienceNo comparable evidence

IG

Trading costs · partial

4.7/5

Effective dimension weight: 100% of the partial score.

OANDA

Trading costs · partial

—/5

Effective dimension weight: 0% of the partial score.

Pepperstone

Trading costs · partial

—/5

Effective dimension weight: 0% 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.

03 · Cost parameters — compare each contribution

Open a parameter to see each rated broker, including conversion, weight and source. Unrated brokers have no contribution.

Advertised EUR/USD minimum spread 10% planned cost weight → 100.0% of this partial score

IG

Residents of United Arab Emirates

4.7/5

Contribution: 4.7 × 100.0% = 4.7

04 · Input, conversion & source

Original input: 0.6 pips

clamp(1 + 4 × (2 − 0.6) ÷ (2 − 0.5), 1, 5) = 4.7/5

IG Limited

UAE retail Forex CFD standard contract. EUR/USD minimum 0.6 pips in the instrument-specific product table, which takes precedence over the generic 0.8-point Forex FAQ. Variable spread; historical average columns are not used.

原始來源 ↗

Observed 2026-09-12 · review due 2026-10-12
Record ig-ae-eurusd-2026-09-12
One broker-published source; no independent execution sample or statistical confidence estimate.

OANDA

No verified comparable input for this broker.

Pepperstone

No verified comparable input for this broker.

Realised average spread Excluded · no common evidence

This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.

Trading commissions Excluded · no common evidence

This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.

Overnight holding cost Excluded · no common evidence

This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.

Inactivity charge policy Excluded · no common evidence

This parameter contributes no weight. Missing evidence does not indicate poor performance.

05 · Methodology, thresholds and limitations →