Editorial principles

Start with a clear assignment

A review should identify the firm and programs it covers, the intended audience and the date of the research. Forex and CFD evaluations should not be treated as interchangeable with futures programs. Differences between evaluation stages, simulated accounts and live arrangements belong in the scope.

Our pages combine two kinds of content. Structured records hold repeatable facts such as fees, account sizes and documented conditions. The manual review explains the consequences of those facts, uses examples and identifies trade-offs. Repeating the same rule in several paragraphs does not make an assessment more useful.

How we choose what to cover

Coverage can begin with reader interest, the availability of official documentation or the need to explain a distinctive program. Listing a firm is not a claim that it is the best option. We do not need a completed manual review to publish a sourced factual overview.

A writer should record material gaps rather than fill them with assumptions. If the minimum information needed to describe a program is unavailable, the missing fact should remain unknown. We should not infer a feature solely because a competing firm offers it or another account at the same firm includes it.

Build an evidence record

Research starts with official product pages, help-center articles and the terms relevant to the account. Record the URL, date, product variant and any selection that affects the answer. A useful note is specific enough for another reader to repeat the check.

For pricing, record the currency, account size, billing frequency, region, platform and optional extras where relevant. For a promotion, keep the code, applicable models and stated limitations. For a rule, identify the stage and whether the loss limit is static or trailing, calculated intraday or at another specified point.

Do not silently combine attractive features from different variants. A low fee from one product and a favorable payout rule from another do not describe an available account. Screenshots should preserve enough context to show what was selected.

Resolve conflicting information explicitly

A product selector, help article and order summary may disagree. First check whether they describe the same region, platform, account size, stage and promotion. A mismatch is not automatically evidence that either source is wrong.

When the conflict concerns the purchase price, an accessible order summary for the exact configuration is stronger evidence of that particular quoted total. If checkout is inaccessible, use the prominent official product page for the selected configuration and record that checkout was not verified.

A price shown at checkout does not override a contractual trading rule. Use the relevant terms for obligations and eligibility, and seek clarification where the sources remain inconsistent. Do not average conflicting figures, invent a compromise or remove the uncertainty from the published explanation.

First-hand claims need first-hand evidence

A writer may describe a purchase, support exchange, trading session or payout only if they actually carried it out and can support the account. Record the date, program and relevant conditions. Protect personal identifiers in anything used for publication.

We write in the collective “we” when expressing the publication’s analysis, but that wording must not imply that every team member traded the account. Name the contributor responsible for a documented test when that context matters.

Free access, a gifted account or a reimbursed fee must be disclosed. An account supplied for a review can provide useful experience, but the arrangement may differ from that of an ordinary paying customer. We should explain that limitation.

Write for a reader comparing real choices

Lead with the facts that change a decision. Explain the total commitment, the most consequential restrictions, the payout requirements and the types of trader for whom those conditions may be difficult. Avoid turning the provider’s promotional language into our conclusion.

Worked examples should label their assumptions and show the calculation. A drawdown example should state the starting balance, relevant equity or balance measure, and when the limit moves. A fee example should distinguish recurring charges from activation or optional costs.

Use clear language and specific headings. Explain abbreviations on first use. Do not describe a simulated account as cash owned by the trader, describe a payout condition as a guarantee or use an attractive discount as a substitute for analysis. Our editorial style does not use em dashes.

Screenshots, links and original work

Use screenshots to substantiate an observation or explain an interface. Each useful screenshot should have a descriptive caption, the date captured and the configuration when it affects the result. Crop out private account details without removing context needed to understand the evidence.

Link to the page that supports the nearby claim. A homepage link is not a substitute for the specific terms or article when that source is available. Quoted wording should be limited, attributed and separated from our interpretation.

The manual review must be original work. Do not rewrite a competitor’s review sentence by sentence, copy their personal experiences or reuse their screenshots as if they were our own. Third-party material needs appropriate permission or a valid basis for use.

Automation supports research, not invented expertise

Software may help collect official-source information, organize notes, compare records or prepare draft wording. An automated extraction is not itself a completed editorial assessment. Dynamic selectors, regional pages and contradictory documents can produce errors that require human judgment.

The person approving a manual review remains responsible for its accuracy, source support and scoring. AI must not invent a trading history, payout, quotation, qualification or customer-support exchange. It must not generate a fictional author and present that identity as a real contributor.

A draft should be checked against the evidence before publication. If an important statement cannot be supported, revise it, qualify it or leave it out. More confident wording cannot repair missing evidence.

The publication check

Before a manual review is published, its named writer and approving editor should check the scope, sources, calculations, important limitations and any disclosed relationships. A fact-check credit should identify a separate contributor only if that contributor actually completed the check.

Our publication standard requires the following checks. This is a review workflow, not a claim that every firm has undergone a financial audit or an account purchase.

• The byline links to a published profile with truthful background information.
• Pricing and rule claims match the stated account configuration and sources.
• First-hand claims identify the activity actually performed and its limitations.
• The five score criteria have written reasons consistent with the review.
• Screenshots and links support the surrounding explanation and omit private information.
• The publication date and any material update date accurately describe the manual review.

Updates and corrections

There is no promise that every source is checked daily. We prioritize issues brought to our attention and material changes identified during research, including pricing, loss rules, eligibility and payout conditions. A check date is a record of work performed, not an automatic freshness badge.

Structured facts can be updated independently of the manual analysis. A changed fee may require a short correction; a changed loss or payout rule may require a new worked example and a reassessment. Keep the source-check date separate from the date of a substantial editorial revision.

For a material correction, the review should explain what changed and why it affects the interpretation. A spelling correction does not justify presenting an old review as newly researched. Readers and firms can submit specific evidence through our contact page.

Conflicts, commercial influence and accountability

Contributors must disclose relevant relationships before reviewing a firm. These include employment, consulting, ownership interests, affiliate arrangements and benefits provided for the assignment. Where a relationship could undermine the assessment, the editor should reassign the work or explain the limitation.

Commercial teams or partners must not dictate a rating or suppress a supported criticism. A provider may supply documents and request a correction, but it does not control our verdict. Our affiliate disclosure explains how commercial links are treated.

These standards apply to future commissioned work as well as updates. Publishing a policy is only useful when the finished review follows it. Readers should be able to compare the standard with the evidence, byline and explanation on the page.