Editorial Methodology

Last updated: 21 May 2026

This page explains how editorial decisions are made on FXDataSearch. We publish this methodology in the interest of transparency, so readers can understand the basis on which we form views, and so that brokers covered by the Site have a clear picture of how listings and ratings are produced.

1. Editorial mission

FXDataSearch exists to provide retail traders with independent, opinionated, source-cited research on the forex and CFD industry. We publish honest editorial opinion on regulated and unregulated brokers, draw attention to publicly available regulator warnings and enforcement actions, and explain to retail readers the structural risks of leveraged products. We are an editorial publication, not a regulator or an advisory firm.

2. How we choose which brokers to cover

We cover brokers that meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Operate publicly in the retail forex / CFD market in at least one major jurisdiction;
• Hold a licence or have applied for a licence with a recognised financial regulator;
• Are widely discussed by retail traders or in industry media;
• Have been the subject of regulator warnings or enforcement actions of consumer-protection interest.

Inclusion in our directory is editorial. Brokers cannot buy placement, scoring, or removal. Brokers do not see content before publication.

3. How we score brokers

Each broker covered by the Site is assigned a single overall score on a 1.0 — 5.0 scale, supported by a category breakdown across five to seven axes (typically: Platform UX, Markets, Fees, Mobile, Support, Regulation). Scoring is fit-for-category, not absolute: a broker rated 5.0 in one axis is judged against the requirements of that category, not the entire market. A different broker rated 5.0 on another axis is judged on a different basis.

Inputs to scoring include:

• Regulator tier — Tier-1 (FCA, ASIC, CySEC, NFA, BaFin, MAS, FINMA) versus offshore. Both can be lawful; protections differ.
• Pricing transparency — published spreads, commissions, swap rates, inactivity fees, withdrawal fees.
• Withdrawal experience — documented retail experience with withdrawal speed, friction, and KYC requirements.
• Platform stability and quality — execution quality during volatility, mobile/desktop parity, demo-vs-live parity, breadth of order types and analytics.
• Disclosure quality — clarity of risk warnings, published loss rates, transparency of the legal entity / regulator linkage.

Scores are editorial opinion. They are reviewed and updated periodically as new information becomes available.

4. How we compile the Watchlist

The Watchlist is a list of brokers that, in our editorial judgement, retail traders should research particularly carefully. A broker may appear on the Watchlist for one or more of the following reasons:

• Has been the subject of a formal warning from a recognised financial regulator (FCA, CFTC, ASIC, CySEC, BaFin, CONSOB, FSCA, and others);
• Has been the subject of court enforcement action or consumer-protection litigation;
• Has appeared in documented consumer-complaint records on platforms operated by recognised consumer-protection bodies or industry associations;
• Operates from a jurisdiction that lacks meaningful retail financial-services regulation;
• Engages in marketing or operational practices that we, in our editorial opinion, view as inconsistent with consumer-protection norms.

Each Watchlist entry summarises, in good faith, the relevant public source. Where a primary public source exists (a regulator warning, court filing, or other public document), we cite or link to it. Where the entry reflects our editorial assessment of practices documented in multiple sources, we identify it as such.

5. Watchlist — right of reply and correction policy

We aim to be accurate. If you are a broker, or a representative of a broker, who believes a Watchlist entry is inaccurate, incomplete, or has become outdated, you have a right of reply. Please contact us via the Site's contact mechanism, identify the entry, and provide the factual basis for your request (and, where applicable, supporting documentation).

We will:

• Acknowledge your request within a reasonable time;
• Review the entry against the evidence you provide;
• Where appropriate, update, annotate, or remove the entry — and in all cases inform you of the outcome.

Accurate references to public regulator warnings, court findings, or consumer-protection records will not be removed solely because the broker disputes them, but factual corrections to such references will of course be made and any contextual update will be considered.

6. Affiliate and commercial disclosure

The Site may participate in affiliate or referral arrangements with one or more brokers featured on the Site. Where such an arrangement exists, the Site may receive a commission, fee, or other consideration when a user clicks an outbound link and subsequently opens an account or executes trades with the linked broker. The presence or absence of an affiliate arrangement does not influence editorial judgement, scoring, ranking, or Watchlist placement. Brokers cannot pay for higher placement, removal from the Watchlist, or any other editorial outcome.

7. Independence

The Site operates editorially independently from the brokers it reviews. No broker has reviewed, approved, or has any veto right over published content prior to publication. Editorial decisions are made by the Site's editorial team alone.

8. Corrections

If you spot a factual error anywhere on the Site, please tell us. We correct errors promptly when notified and the correction is supported by evidence. We do not silently rewrite history: substantive corrections to live content are marked with a note where appropriate.

9. Update frequency

Broker reviews are reviewed and updated at least annually, and more frequently where material changes (regulatory status, ownership, fee structure, platform technology) come to our attention. The Watchlist is reviewed continuously.

10. Contact

Right-of-reply requests, factual correction requests, and other editorial correspondence may be submitted through the contact mechanism provided on the Site. We aim to respond within thirty (30) days.