Audio
English
BROKER RATINGS · OPEN EVERY LAYER

One rating.
Every reason.

Choose your residence or explore the entities behind the brands.

Where is the broker company regulated? · A broker brand can operate through several companies. Select a country to explore the companies regulated there.

Pilot · based on available data
How this becomes a full rating

Published observations and completed editorial assessments replace the demo inputs as coverage grows. Scores update using the published method.

Current data coverage: 0% of planned weight. Coverage describes our evidence, not broker quality. Method →

United KingdomCalculated from: No common evidence · 0 shared parameters · 0/11 monitored jurisdictionsNo shared rating evidence in this selection. Missing ratings are not zero. Criteria can differ between countries.
Colour guide — what do the country markers mean?

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.

  • Green · both measures availableBoth tracked measures are available for every displayed broker.
  • Yellow · partial informationSome observations are available, but coverage differs or is incomplete.
  • Red · rating data missingCompanies are identified, but their rating observations are not available yet.
  • Empty · still checkingAt least one company or offer still needs verification; no observations are available for this selection.
  • Grey with a slash · not applicableWe have verified that this option does not apply.
  • Square outline · your selectionThe chosen country applies to all three brokers.

ALL shows the overall comparison across included companies. It is not a country.

IG

PILOT RATING—/5

Rating unavailable - missing evidence

Score components & company
Selected jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Availability / entity mapping under review

Data: —/5 × 60%
Editorial review: not available × 40%

Data completeness - 0% of planned data weight0%

Broker profile → Why this score? → Add to comparison +

Explore ratings: calculations, criteria & sources

Comparing all displayed brokers.

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.

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: Jurisdictions — where the rating comes from

Identical included jurisdictions and equal jurisdiction weights for all brands. 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 →