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: 0% of planned weight. Coverage describes our evidence, not broker quality. 評分方法 →

日本Calculated from: No common evidence · 0 shared parameters · 0/11 listed residence marketsNo shared rating evidence in this selection. 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.
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: —/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 →

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

No common set to average.

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

No dimension has a common verified rating for this selection. Pending mappings and missing observations are not scored zero.

Trading costsPartial · 0% 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

—/5

Effective dimension weight: 0% 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 Excluded · no common evidence

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

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 →