A review begins with a research question, not a score. We identify the accountable operator, map how data and assets move, test the clarity of commercial terms, and record both corroborating and conflicting evidence.
Evidence hierarchy
Registries, contracts, technical documentation and dated policies.
Reproducible audits, measurements or controlled product access.
Named sources, clear methods and accessible supporting material.
Useful for attribution, but never independent confirmation.
The eight evaluation areas
1. Transparency
We seek the legal operator, jurisdiction, ownership, accountable contacts, product terms and a verifiable history. Missing operator information weighs heavily against confidence.
2. Security and custody
We map where assets are held, whether API keys are used, which permissions are required, how credentials are protected and whether security claims have an independently documented scope.
3. Trading functionality
We separate provider descriptions from demonstrated capabilities. Strategy logic, asset coverage, order routing, exchange dependencies and execution limitations are documented where evidence permits.
4. Risk controls
We examine position sizing, exposure limits, stop conditions, leverage controls, failure states, monitoring and the user’s ability to halt or revoke access.
5. Fees
We reconstruct the total cost: subscriptions, commissions, spreads, performance charges, withdrawal fees, minimum terms and third-party costs.
6. Usability
We consider clarity, reversibility, records, accessibility and whether material warnings appear before consequential actions.
7. Support and accountability
We review documented support paths, response evidence, complaint patterns and routes for formal corrections or disputes.
8. Evidence quality
We assess independence, recency, reproducibility, sample size and conflicts of interest. Provider dashboards, testimonials and screenshots alone receive low evidentiary weight.
Evidence levels
| Strong | Material findings are supported by primary records and independent, reproducible evidence. |
|---|---|
| Moderate | Core facts are documented, with some meaningful limitations or unresolved areas. |
| Limited | Important facts rely on provider claims or cannot be independently reproduced. |
| Very limited | Operator, custody, costs or core product operation cannot be adequately established. |
Risk levels and scores
Risk levels reflect unresolved operational, custody, transparency and commercial concerns; they do not forecast returns. We only publish a numeric editorial score when the evidence can support that precision. Otherwise, the score is explicitly “Not assigned.”
Conflicts, updates and corrections
Commercial relationships do not determine coverage or conclusions. Reviews are checked when material evidence becomes available and are otherwise scheduled for periodic review. Providers and readers can submit corrections with primary documentation through our corrections channel. We record material changes rather than silently rewriting the conclusion.
Why missing information changes the verdict
Uncertainty is not proof of wrongdoing. It is, however, a practical constraint on informed consent and risk assessment. When a user cannot establish who is accountable, who controls assets, or what the service costs, that absence reduces the confidence a responsible review can offer.