Our methodology is designed to make broker research transparent and reproducible. Rather than treating marketing claims as conclusions, we separate the information a trader can verify from estimates that depend on account conditions or market movements.
1. Identify the relevant legal entity
We start with the broker entity serving the trader's jurisdiction, not just the global brand name. Where possible, we point readers to the regulator's public register, the entity's legal documents and applicable regional restrictions. Regulatory permissions, client-money arrangements and compensation protections may differ between entities; readers should confirm the terms of their own account.
2. Examine trading costs as a complete calculation
For illustration, a trade's estimated cost can include the spread converted into account currency, the total entry-and-exit commission, and any overnight swap or financing charge for the holding period. Slippage, conversion fees, liquidity conditions and other execution-related costs may also affect the actual outcome.
Illustrative all-in cost: spread cost + round-turn commission + overnight financing + applicable additional fees. Inputs should specify the instrument, account type, lot size, direction, trade duration, quote currency and date of observation.
We do not present estimated, historical or illustrative spreads as guaranteed live prices. Readers can explore sensitivity to assumptions with the broker-cost comparison tool and see the FBS Trading Costs guide.
3. Test operational instructions and platform differences
Platform and account guides are written around explicit steps and common failure modes. We distinguish MT4 from MT5, desktop from mobile, and account or server settings from software settings. Withdrawal discussions separate a broker's processing stage from payment-provider or banking settlement and explain when identity documents may be required.
4. Source hierarchy and verification dates
Our preferred evidence includes official contract specifications, broker policy documents, public regulatory registers, platform documentation and verifiable product terms. Third-party commentary may help identify questions but is not treated as proof of licensing, pricing or client protection. Readers should treat publication and update dates as editorial dates, not evidence that live broker terms are unchanged.
5. Editorial separation and corrections
Reviews should identify material limitations, risks and assumptions alongside possible benefits. Affiliate relationships must not replace evidence or conceal uncertainty. If information becomes outdated, we aim to revise the affected statement, clarify its context or remove an unsupported claim, while preserving useful historical context when relevant.
For more context read About FBS Research, our Affiliate Disclosure, and the FBS Regulation guide.
Methodology published: 4 November 2026.
