Editorial Policy

This editorial policy describes how TopForex selects content topics, conducts research, applies scoring and ranking methodologies, and handles updates and corrections. It applies to all broker reviews, comparison tables, ratings, guides, and editorial commentary published on this site.

Our goal is to produce content that is as factually accurate and practically useful as possible within the constraints of publicly available information. We acknowledge that some assessments involve judgment calls, and we describe where that is the case.

Editorial decisions — including which brokers we cover, how we score them, and what we write — are made independently of our commercial partnerships. Brokers do not pay for reviews, do not receive draft reviews for approval prior to publication, and cannot request removal of negative assessments.

We maintain a separate disclosure policy that explains how affiliate compensation works. Commercial relationships are never a factor in determining a broker's score, ranking position, or the tone of coverage. A broker we earn revenue from may receive a lower rating than one we do not.

Our research draws on publicly available information: broker websites, client agreements, fee schedules, regulatory filings, official regulator registers, and published financial data. We also incorporate user-reported experiences where corroborated by other evidence.

We do not have access to internal broker data, proprietary execution statistics, or non-public financial information. Our assessments are therefore limited to what any sufficiently diligent researcher could observe from the outside. Where information is unavailable or unverifiable, we say so rather than estimate.

We periodically contact brokers directly to clarify factual matters such as fee structures, account types, or regulatory status. Responses from brokers are factored in where verifiable; we do not publish unverified claims supplied by brokers without independent confirmation.

Broker scores are calculated using a weighted multi-factor model that evaluates: regulatory standing and jurisdiction quality; trading costs (spreads, commissions, overnight fees); platform quality and available instruments; deposit and withdrawal process; customer support availability and responsiveness; and breadth of educational and research resources.

Weights within the model reflect our view of what matters most to the typical retail trader. We recognise that these weights represent editorial judgment and that different traders may reasonably weigh factors differently. A broker rated highly in our model may not be the best choice for every individual.

Rankings in comparison tables are generated by the scoring model unless explicitly labelled otherwise (e.g. "alphabetical" or "by minimum deposit"). We do not manually override model-generated rankings for commercial reasons.

We believe our methodology is rigorous and consistently applied, but we do not claim it is the only valid approach, or that it produces objectively correct results in any absolute sense.

Trading platform usability, customer support quality, and the relevance of educational content all involve qualitative assessment. Two experienced reviewers applying the same framework may reach modestly different conclusions. We manage this by using structured rubrics, cross-checking assessments across multiple team members, and documenting the rationale for borderline scores.

In areas where reasonable people disagree — such as whether a particular regulatory regime provides adequate investor protection — we present the relevant facts and note the debate rather than asserting a single position as fact.

This policy and the methodology it describes are subject to revision. We will note material changes on this page.

Broker information changes frequently. Fee schedules, product offerings, regulatory status, and ownership structures can be updated by brokers without advance notice. We aim to review each major broker listing at least annually, and we prioritise re-reviews when significant changes are reported by users or identified in our monitoring.

Despite these efforts, some information on this site may be out of date at any given time. We display the date on which each broker review was last substantively updated. We recommend verifying current terms directly with the broker before making any decision.

We correct factual errors promptly when they are identified, whether by our team, by users, or by the brokers themselves. Corrections are made silently for minor typographical or formatting errors. Material factual corrections are noted within the affected content with a brief description of what changed and when.

Brokers who believe a factual error has been published about them are welcome to contact us with supporting evidence. We will review the claim impartially and update content if the evidence warrants it. We do not accept requests to alter editorial assessments, rankings, or scores on grounds other than factual inaccuracy.

TopForex covers regulated and semi-regulated brokers accessible to retail traders internationally. We do not cover unlicensed entities, firms on official warning lists, or services primarily marketed as signal-selling or copy-trading schemes without underlying brokerage.

We do not publish personalised financial advice, tax guidance, or legal analysis. Content that resembles advice is general in nature and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional consultation tailored to your circumstances.

We do not accept or publish paid-for editorial content, sponsored reviews, or press releases presented as independent analysis.