Research and review methodology

The four-step process

1. Source. Every factual claim is traced to a named origin with a date — a regulator's register, a court or enforcement document, a company filing, a primary announcement, or a named report. Where no such origin exists, the claim is published as unsourced or not published at all.
2. Verify. Provider-reported statements — licensing, fees, spreads, ownership, product availability, protections — are checked against primary records. A provider's own website is evidence of what the provider says, not evidence that it is true.
3. Contextualize. Findings are set against cost, leverage, realistic downside and the alternatives a reader actually has. We do not present a single number or feature in isolation.
4. Disclose. Uncertainty, staleness, gaps in evidence, conflicts of interest and any commercial relationship are stated on the page, next to the claim.

Evidence grades

• Verified — every material claim has a primary source with a recorded access date.
• Partially verified — some material claims are supported; the remainder are labelled individually.
• Unreviewed — no evidence review has been carried out. All archive content migrated from 2017–2021 currently sits here.

What a review must contain before it can carry a rating

No rating, score, ranking, verdict, pros-and-cons summary or recommendation is published unless all of the following are visible on the page: the reviewed entity's verified identity and official address; its status and the source and date that status was checked; the review scope and the methodology version applied; a claim-by-claim evidence table with sources and access dates; any regulatory claim stated with jurisdiction, authority and identifier; and a disclosure of any commercial relationship.

Until those conditions are met, rating_value and rating_scale stay null, no rating interface is rendered, and no rating structured data is emitted. Archived provider pages use Article structured data rather than Review.

Balance

A review is not a promotion. We do not run positive-only provider coverage, and we do not describe a provider as safe, regulated, fraudulent, best, fee-free or likely to recover a reader's money without current evidence that says so. Where a provider has been accused of misconduct, we distinguish an allegation from an official action, a settlement, a finding and an opinion, and we attribute each precisely.

Money-recovery content

Recovery of lost funds is never guaranteed by anyone. We do not collect leads or payments for recovery services, and we will never ask you for financial credentials, wallet keys, seed phrases, identity documents or payment details.

AI assistance

Where automated tooling assists with drafting, structuring or migration, a human editor is accountable for every published claim. See the editorial policy.

Methodology governance

Current version: 1.0. Reviews record the version applied at the time of publication; migrated archive records carry legacy-import-0, meaning no methodology was applied. Owner of this document: [PLACEHOLDER — editorial contact to be supplied].