How I Review Brokers

Important: Binary options are high-risk and may be restricted or prohibited where you live. This website does not provide personal financial advice. Check the rules and regulator warnings in your own jurisdiction.

My review framework

I review brokers and trading platforms with an evidence-first process. A broker’s own marketing can tell me what it claims. It cannot prove that the claim is true.

How I describe the evidence

Evidence usually comes from three places: my own use, sources I research, and reports from consumers. I try to make that basis clear in the wording instead of forcing every sentence into a formal label. I may not keep or publish records from every routine test or personal impression.

1. Legal entity and regulatory status

I identify the company operating the service, its stated address, licence number, regulator, and permitted jurisdictions. Whenever possible, I link directly to a regulator register, warning, enforcement notice, or official company filing.

2. Availability and restrictions

I check whether the service accepts users from specific countries and whether local authorities prohibit or restrict the product. If a website loads in your country, that does not mean the platform is authorised to serve you there.

3. Product terms and costs

I read the terms behind the sales page: minimum deposits, withdrawals, identity checks, fees, bonuses, payout claims, inactivity rules, and the dispute process. The source and verification date matter because these terms can change.

4. Hands-on testing

When I describe a feature from personal use, I’m describing what I saw at that time. That may include registration, identity verification, demo use, a deposit, trade execution, support, or a withdrawal. I don’t treat one test as a platform-wide promise, and I won’t always have retained records for every ordinary interface, usability, or performance impression. Where screenshots, transaction records, or measurements are available, they can strengthen more consequential claims.

5. Complaints and external evidence

I read complaints for patterns, not for easy headlines. One report is an allegation, not proof. Repeated details across independent sources matter more, especially when they align with company responses, payment records, or regulator action.

6. Conflicts and affiliate relationships

If a commercial relationship exists, I disclose it. The commission does not change the standards I use to evaluate the broker. My goal is to keep every review and verdict 100% objective, whether an affiliate relationship exists or not. See the affiliate disclosure.

Ratings and verdicts

A rating should follow the criteria shown on the page. A slick interface does not cancel weak regulation or a serious withdrawal pattern. Those risks carry more weight than cosmetic features, and a paid link will not rescue a negative verdict.

Update process

I revisit high-risk broker and regulatory pages when I notice a material change or when a page becomes a priority again. I don’t change a review date just to make an old page look fresh. A new date should reflect a real review of the relevant claims and sources. Closed services are labelled clearly and kept when the historical page still protects or informs readers.

If you want to challenge the evidence behind a review, use the contact page and send the source. The editorial policy and fact-checking policy explain the standards behind this process.

Methodology version: 1.1. Last reviewed: 22 September 2026.