Last Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Broker Expert Audit publishes editorial research about online brokers and trading platforms, with particular attention to Forex, CFDs, offshore entities, and projects that present elevated transparency or regulatory risks. Our reviews are not regulatory, legal, or financial audits and do not replace independent professional advice.
1. Editorial Principles and Independence
We aim to distinguish verifiable facts, company claims, user statements, and editorial conclusions. Reviews are written around the specific facts available for the company and are not intended to be mechanically interchangeable templates.
Editorial conclusions and Expert Ratings are made independently of payment. A company may pay for publication of a review, but this does not determine its category, conclusions, or rating. Paid publications are marked at the end of the relevant article. Sidebar banners are advertisements, not editorial endorsements. The Website does not use affiliate links.
AI-assisted tools may be used for supporting tasks such as research organisation, language support, or identifying material for verification. They do not replace editorial responsibility: the final content, factual checks, and published conclusions are reviewed by a human editor.
We update our internal standards as relevant risks, regulator notices, platform practices, and available evidence change.
2. Sources and Evidence
We give priority to primary and directly attributable sources. Depending on the company and available information, these may include:
- official registers and warning lists of financial regulators; corporate and business registers; and records from public authorities;
- the company’s website, legal documents, trading conditions, risk disclosures, payment information, and public communications;
- domain-registration data, archived website versions, and technical information that helps establish a project’s timeline or identify inconsistencies;
- reputable news sources, public court or enforcement records, and other identifiable third-party materials where relevant;
- user reviews and ratings on recognised platforms, treated as context and possible leads for further checking rather than as stand-alone proof of wrongdoing.
We record the date of access where it is material. A source can change after publication, and the absence of a record does not by itself prove that a company has never held an authorisation or conducted a particular activity.
3. Categories and Expert Rating
The Website’s three categories and the Expert Rating serve different purposes. A category describes the editorial status of the company’s authorisation or transparency; the Expert Rating reflects the editor’s overall assessment of risk based on the evidence available at the time of review.
- Licensed Brokers: relevant authorisation is verifiable in an official register and is consistent with the entity, service, and domain being reviewed. This does not amount to a recommendation.
- Unlicensed Brokers: relevant authorisation has not been confirmed for the company’s stated activity or target jurisdiction, while the company or associated entity can be identified to a meaningful extent.
- Unclarified Brokers: available information is insufficient, materially inconsistent, or suggests that the identity, domain, or regulatory claims require further clarification.
Official warnings, blacklists, credible evidence of impersonation, and other material red flags are disclosed as high-risk factors. They may materially affect the Expert Rating and the conclusions, but do not create a fourth category.
The Expert Rating is not a fixed mathematical score. It is formed from the overall evidence, including licensing and regulatory status, official warnings, legal and contact transparency, domain and website history, disclosed trading and payment terms, risk controls, and relevant reputation signals.
4. Main Review Modules
Each review is adapted to the available evidence. The following modules are used where relevant:
- Legal status and authorisation. We compare the company’s stated entity, licence number, authorised domain, services, and jurisdiction with official register entries and regulator warnings.
- Corporate and digital footprint. We examine disclosed entities and contacts, domain data, archived versions, and changes that may help identify inconsistencies or a possible clone. Domain age or registration term is only a contextual signal, not proof of reliability or fraud.
- Public claims and risk indicators. We review marketing claims, promised returns, sales practices, remote-access requests, referral restrictions, software-distribution practices, and other patterns that may increase risk.
- Trading terms and contractual conditions. We review disclosed leverage, spreads, fees, bonus and withdrawal conditions, negative-balance protection, margin-close-out terms, risk warnings, and liability clauses. Jurisdiction-specific investor-protection rules are considered in their applicable context.
- Payments and withdrawals. We review disclosed payment methods, payment intermediaries where identifiable, cryptocurrency or P2P arrangements, withdrawal conditions, and fees.
5. Limits of the Review
We evaluate publicly available information and material supplied to the editorial desk. We do not have access to a broker’s internal systems, books, client accounts, or order-routing records unless the company publishes reliable evidence. We therefore do not present unverified assumptions as established facts.
Where evidence is incomplete or conflicting, we say so and use proportionate language. A review reflects information available on the publication or update date and may be revised if new primary evidence becomes available.
6. Comments, Corrections, and Updates
User comments are published only after manual moderation. We may reject or remove spam, undisclosed promotional content, abusive language, personal data, unverifiable allegations, coordinated manipulation, and content promoting dubious recovery or chargeback services.
Companies, authors, and readers may send documentary evidence or report factual errors to brokerexpertaudit@gmail.com. We aim to provide an initial response within 14 days. Material changes to a review may be marked in the article as an update.
7. How to Report a Dubious Broker
If you have information about an unregistered Forex or CFD broker, a suspected clone, or another high-risk trading platform, send the domain and supporting materials to brokerexpertaudit@gmail.com. Sending information does not guarantee publication, a rating change, or a response beyond the process described above.