Rating methodology · Top 2.1 · Prospective 1.1
How the FXContext broker rating is calculated
FXContext uses separate Top and Prospective tracks. Both combine 60% public evidence with 40% standardised editorial review for a defined entity, jurisdiction, client category, product and date.
Two separate methodology tracks
Top Brands Methodology 2.1 applies to brands with more than five years of verifiable operating history. It uses ten criteria: seven public-evidence criteria and three FXContext review criteria.
Prospective Brands Methodology 1.1 is the simplified route for brands with five years or less of verifiable operating history. It uses five criteria: three public-evidence criteria and two FXContext review criteria. Recency does not add points, and Prospective results are never mixed with Top Brands rankings.
What the rating covers
A published rating ranges from 0.0 to 5.0 and is shown to one decimal place. The ten Top criteria and the five Prospective criteria each use integer scores from 0 to 5. A zero is used only when verified evidence supports that result. Other evidence states remain visible outside the calculation.
Each result belongs to its stated entity, country, client type, product and review date. Readers can therefore see the context in which the assessment was calculated.
What each criterion score means
The score is selected from the versioned anchor for that criterion. A score of 3 means the applicable baseline is adequately verified. A score of 4 requires more complete evidence or disclosure, with only a minor documented limitation. A score of 5 requires the highest level in the rubric without an unrepresented material limitation.
Scores below 3 require documented limitations. Zero requires verified failure or absence; missing or unverified evidence is never zero.
| Score | Required level |
|---|---|
| 5/5 | Complete current evidence; no unrepresented material limitation. |
| 4/5 | Complete evidence, with only a minor documented limitation. |
| 3/5 | Adequate verified baseline; principal limitations documented. |
| 2/5 | Assessable evidence with material limitations. |
| 1/5 | Assessable evidence with severe limitations. |
| 0/5 | Verified absence or failure of the applicable requirement. |
Evidence observed for each criterion
The detailed signals below belong to Top Brands Methodology 2.1. Prospective Methodology 1.1 applies the same common 0–5 meaning through its five consolidated criteria shown in the next section.
- Legal entity and authorisationEntity, authority, permissions and restrictions.
- Client protection and regulatory transparencyApplicable protections and regulatory disclosures.
- Costs and pricing disclosureSpreads, commissions and material fees.
- Account and funding conditionsAccount, funding and withdrawal conditions.
- Platforms, execution and risk controlsPlatforms, execution policy and risk controls.
- Markets, eligibility and regional availabilityForex scope, eligibility and regional restrictions.
- Support, complaints and transaction operationsSupport, complaints and transaction procedures.
- Context and source validationConsistency of context and dated sources.
- Practical terms and platform verificationConsistency of terms and platform information.
- Responsiveness, corrections and gap handlingResponses, corrections and evidence-gap handling.
One assessment for each jurisdiction
Before scoring begins, FXContext records the exact legal entity, authority, jurisdiction, client category, product and relevant account scope. If a broker is reviewed in more than one jurisdiction, each context receives a separate assessment and result.
Evidence that genuinely applies across contexts may be referenced more than once, but scores are not copied. A broker profile or directory may show a clearly labelled Global overview or EU composite rating. Each is the arithmetic mean of the broker's published country ratings that use the same methodology, client category and market scope; the EU composite includes only verified EU/EEA countries. Each country counts once, Not rated contexts are excluded, and the display names every country included. These are derived summaries, not separate assessments or authorisations, and are not used in rankings when broker coverage differs. The underlying country, entity, authority and service basis remain available in the jurisdiction records.
Criteria and weights
Top Brands Methodology 2.1
| Category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Legal entity and authorisation | 12% |
| Client protection and regulatory transparency | 10% |
| Costs and pricing disclosure | 10% |
| Account and funding conditions | 8% |
| Platforms, execution and risk controls | 8% |
| Markets, eligibility and regional availability | 6% |
| Support, complaints and transaction operations | 6% |
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Context and source validation | 16% |
| Practical terms and platform verification | 14% |
| Responsiveness, corrections and gap handling | 10% |
Prospective Brands Methodology 1.1
Every Prospective criterion weighs 20% of the overall result. The first three criteria form the 60% public-evidence block; the last two form the 40% FXContext review block.
| Family | Criterion | Weight | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public evidence | Legal entity, authorisation and jurisdiction fit | 20% | Mandatory |
| Public evidence | Client safeguards and regulatory transparency | 20% | Mandatory |
| Public evidence | Core trading terms and operational access | 20% | Material |
| FXContext review | Context, source and practical verification | 20% | Mandatory |
| FXContext review | Disclosure quality and improvement pathway | 20% | Material |
- Legal entity, authorisation and jurisdiction fit
- Matches the brand to the contracting entity, official permission and country-specific service basis.
- Client safeguards and regulatory transparency
- Reviews risk, client-money, negative-balance, complaint and material contractual disclosures applicable to the context.
- Core trading terms and operational access
- Checks pricing, funding, account, platform, risk controls and operational availability for the assessed client.
- Context, source and practical verification
- Confirms that entity, country, client type, product, source dates and practical terms describe the same assessment context.
- Disclosure quality and improvement pathway
- Reviews whether essential information is clear, consistent, maintainable and open to documented correction. It does not score commercial growth potential.
Public evidence uses admissible public sources, with regulatory and legal sources taking priority over commercial pages. FXContext review uses standardised direct checks, verified documents and authorised enquiries. Broker-submitted material remains unverified until its identity, relevance, consistency and date have been checked.
Selecting a score inserts the corresponding versioned public judgement. The editor still records the evidence and rationale, while the system calculates coverage and the final total without a manual override.
Calculation
public evidence score = weighted mean of verified public criteria
FXContext review score = weighted mean of completed review criteria
overall score = (public evidence score × 0.60) + (FXContext review score × 0.40)
Only applicable and verified criteria enter each weighted mean. The public total is rounded half-up to one decimal place at the end. The overall score cannot be typed or overridden manually.
In Prospective 1.1 the public-evidence score is the mean of criteria 1–3 and the FXContext review score is the mean of criteria 4–5. Because every criterion weighs 20%, the final result is also reproducible as the mean of all five scores. The 60/40 split remains explicit to distinguish public evidence from editorial review.
How to read coverage
- 60/60 public evidence verified
- All applicable public-evidence weight has been verified.
- 0/40 FXContext review completed
- The direct review block has not yet been completed.
- 45/60*
- Fifteen points of public-evidence weight remain unverified. The asterisk means additional evidence may be submitted and checked.
Private evidence contributes to FXContext review after verification. It changes the public-evidence indicator only if it becomes an admissible public source and is checked again under the same rules.
The same minimum verified coverage applies to both tracks: at least80/100. Missing or unverified evidence reduces coverage; it is not converted into a zero.
When a numerical rating can be published
A record is eligible for publication only when all gates are satisfied:
- The record uses either Top Brands Methodology and Rubric 2.1 or Prospective Brands Methodology and Rubric 1.1.
- Verified coverage is at least 80/100.
- The three mandatory criteria are current and verified. For Prospective 1.1 these are legal entity/authorisation/jurisdiction fit, client safeguards/regulatory transparency, and context/source/practical verification.
- Every mandatory criterion is assessable and no critical evidence is unresolved.
- Context, sources, dates, components, rationale and calculation are reproducible.
- Independent review, separate approval and the funding disclosure are recorded.
If a gate fails, the profile may remain visible as Not rated with a specific reason. During a critical evidence review it may show Withheld: no current numerical rating is available while that evidence is being checked.
How ratings are compared
Numerical ranking includes only current published ratings that use the same methodology version and the same comparison context. Equal displayed scores share the same position; alphabetical order changes display only, not rank. Not rated, Withheld and Expired records remain outside the numerical ranking.
The two broker-profile tracks use separate rankings. A track describes profile and assessment readiness, not quality. Historical Methodology 1.0 or 2.0 records are not mixed with Methodology 2.1. A material change creates a dated revision and may increase, reduce, confirm or withhold the previous result. Prospective 1.1 results are compared only with current Prospective 1.1 results in the same jurisdiction, client category and market scope.