Research Methodology

Principles

Criteria are fixed before any platform is examined, so that the framework cannot be reshaped to flatter a conclusion. Every assessment relies on financial research, public information, industry data, market analysis, platform comparison principles and risk-awareness education. Where a criterion cannot be assessed from available sources, we record that gap instead of filling it with inference.

The six criteria

• Market coverage — instrument categories and how availability is documented.
• Cost structure — spreads, commissions, financing, conversion and non-trading fees.
• Order types and execution — available orders and published execution behaviour.
• Risk controls — stop functionality, margin rules, close-out levels, exposure visibility.
• Usability and stability — charting, ticket clarity, device parity, behaviour under load.
• Transparency — accessibility and clarity of documentation, terms and support.

Sources we accept

Provider documentation, published fee schedules and terms of business; recognised industry reference material; and general market data conventions. We treat marketing copy as a claim to be checked, not as evidence. Third-party summaries, including our own, are explicitly described as starting points for a reader's verification rather than substitutes for it.

Limits we state openly

We do not verify regulatory status, corporate ownership, financial condition or client outcomes. We do not test execution quality with live capital. We do not evaluate suitability for any individual. Readers should confirm regulatory and legal matters with the competent authority in their own jurisdiction.

Educational grounding

Platform research is only meaningful alongside market understanding. Our library — beginning with How Trading Platforms Work and Risk Management in Trading — supplies the concepts the criteria depend on. The framework applied end to end appears in our ProMarketsCFD review. Our publishing standards are described in the editorial policy.