Every score on GlobalFXHub comes from one disclosed methodology, applied identically to every broker in our researched set — whether it’s licensed by CySEC, the FCA, the Seychelles FSA, or another regulator. This is desk research compiled from public regulatory registers and broker disclosures — not hands-on account testing. We say that plainly because plenty of broker-review sites imply otherwise.
The nine categories, and their weight
- Regulation & client protection — 30%. A fixed point value for each independently-verifiable regulator held (CySEC, the FCA, ASIC, FSCA, and similar), checked against each regulator’s own public register where possible. Offshore-only regulators, such as the Seychelles FSA, add nothing on their own — a broker whose sole licence is offshore scores at the bottom of this factor, reflecting materially lighter oversight and no statutory investor compensation scheme, though we still disclose that licence and its number on the broker’s review page. More independent oversight scores higher.
- Trading costs — 20%. The broker’s EUR/USD spread, scored against fixed pip thresholds (tighter spreads score higher). We deliberately exclude minimum deposit from this factor: a low minimum makes a broker more accessible, but it isn’t a measure of what it actually costs you to trade.
- Non-trading fees — 10%. Confirmed inactivity fees and currency-conversion charges. A broker confirmed not to charge either scores well; a confirmed fee scores worse; where we couldn’t independently confirm either way, this sits at a neutral midpoint rather than being guessed.
- Platforms & tools — 10%. Number of distinct trading platforms supported (MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView, a broker’s own proprietary platform, and so on). This is a breadth count, not a quality judgment of any one platform — a broker with one excellent proprietary platform isn’t automatically worse than one offering four mediocre ones, which is also why this factor now carries less weight than it used to.
- Execution / trading conditions — 10%. Whether the broker discloses a no-dealing-desk execution model (ECN/STP/DMA), discounted for any independently-reported pattern of withdrawal refusals, fund manipulation, or similar conduct red flags surfaced in our research.
- Product range — 5%. How many distinct asset classes (forex, indices, shares, commodities, crypto, bonds, ETFs, and more) we could independently confirm the broker offers, against a fixed scale.
- Deposits & withdrawals — 5%. Confirmed deposit/withdrawal fees and processing speed, discounted for any independently-reported pattern of delayed, blocked, or disputed withdrawals.
- Transparency — 5%. Starts clean and is discounted only for specific, named findings from our research: a regulator warning or blacklisting, a confirmed clone/impersonation risk, confirmed fake-review manipulation, or a defunct/wound-down status.
- Track record — 5%. Years in operation, against a fixed scale from founding year. Longer-operating brokers score higher.
How the score is actually calculated
Each factor is scored against a fixed, disclosed threshold — an absolute rubric, not a ranking relative to other brokers in our set. A broker is scored on what it actually is, not on how it stacks up against whoever else happens to be in our dataset that week. That means adding, removing, or re-researching a broker never changes anyone else’s score, and a broker can only improve its own score by actually changing something about itself (a new licence, a lower spread, a resolved complaint pattern) — never just because we added a worse broker to the list.
Where we couldn’t independently confirm a specific figure — a spread or a founding year — we don’t guess or estimate. That factor is left out of that broker’s average and the remaining factors are reweighted to fill the gap, rather than showing a number we can’t stand behind. For the newer categories above (non-trading fees, execution, product range, deposits/withdrawals, transparency), an unconfirmed fact instead scores a neutral midpoint, since these are derived from our own research notes and “we don’t know” shouldn’t silently swing a broker’s score up or down.
What we don’t do
We don’t open live accounts and trade through them. We don’t award scores based on affiliate revenue, and we don’t have any current advertiser relationships to affect our scoring in the first place — see Why trust us. And we don’t treat a “What other reviewers say” figure, shown on individual review pages, as our own assessment — those are compiled from what other publicly indexed sites report, clearly labeled as such, and kept separate from our own score.
Regulatory status, licence numbers, and trading conditions change. Always verify current terms directly with the broker and against the relevant regulator’s own public register — for example CySEC’s or the Seychelles FSA’s — before making a decision. Nothing on this site is personalized financial advice.