Partner links. We may earn a commission. Demo availability and country eligibility vary. Disclosure
Research & Evidence Library
BBH RESEARCH LIBRARY · REVIEWED SOURCES · OCTOBER 2026
Our editorial source hierarchy, verification rules and dated evidence records.
What we classify as evidence
We prioritise primary regulator records, official legal agreements, current product terms and detailed provider help documentation. Company marketing statements are attributed to the company. Third-party comparisons may suggest topics to investigate but do not independently prove current customer conditions.
We do not assert independent financed account testing where none was performed. We do not invent win rates, licence status, reviews, conversion numbers or verified-withdrawal screenshots. For user-submitted complaints, proof and the opportunity for correction matter.
Corrections and evidence updates
If you find a changed agreement, invalid source URL or factual error, submit the page URL and primary document at Contact. We review the evidence and update the relevant page without quietly concealing a material correction.
RESEARCH DESK · TRANSPARENT EVIDENCE
Deep-dive research and verification framework
Good research separates documentary facts, company claims, mathematical illustrations and observations that still require independent verification.
Evidence reviewed: October 2026 · Verify official source dates before acting.
Four evidence levels for every material statement
Level A is a primary regulator rule, register or directly applicable enforcement notice. Level B is a current contractual document or official company account policy, clearly attributed to its issuer. Level C is a reproducible, dated test with raw records, method and limitations; a single screenshot does not qualify. Level D is a secondary report, anecdote or unverified claim used only to generate questions. A broker marketing page is never upgraded into a regulator finding simply because its presentation looks official.
Write the evidence ledger before writing the conclusion
For each claim store the claim text, broker/entity, instrument, country, source title and URL, document revision or effective date if provided, date accessed, relevant excerpt or page reference, confidence and any contrary evidence. Links are not permanent guarantees: official registers can be updated and providers may replace agreements. A useful article should expose the important citation next to the claim and keep the unresolved items in a separate list. This prevents apparent certainty from slipping into a high-risk comparison.
Distinguish provider terms from independent field testing
A platform help page might say that demo funds are virtual, payouts vary or withdrawals normally take a stated period. These are provider-published terms, not independent evidence that the service performs as advertised in every region. Likewise, a trader's successful withdrawal story cannot establish typical success rates. Reports of manipulated prices or denied reimbursements must be attributed and linked to a regulator or reliable original evidence rather than reproduced as unqualified findings about a named business.
Publication changes and corrections should be visible
An article's date alone says nothing about the age of its evidence. Important changes include revised company terms, regulator interventions, account restrictions, different advertised instruments and changed payment requirements. When rechecking a claim, record what changed and retain a versioned citation. If a factual error is found, correct the exact assertion, state the date, and explain its scope. Cosmetic edits should not automatically be promoted as a substantive new regulatory review.
Commercial relationships must not control conclusions
A referral relationship can create an incentive to exaggerate the quality of a platform. Our comparison framework therefore keeps the same legal, payout, pricing and withdrawal questions regardless of whether an Partner link exists. Partner links are labelled and tracking status is separate from editorial research. A platform with no partner URL must remain eligible for coverage. Report an unresolved legal or payment fact as unresolved rather than implying approval through an attractive 'Visit Demo' button.
Questions to record before reaching a conclusion
Is a statement backed by a regulator, a company claim or a test?
Does its source identify the same legal entity and jurisdiction?
Was the document current when the page was checked?
Has contrary evidence been researched and explained?
Can a reader submit a correction with the exact affected claim?
Frequently asked research questions
Are company support pages independent proof?
No. They document what the provider says, and should be attributed accordingly.
Does a new article date mean all sources were refreshed?
No. Each important claim needs its own current evidence and check date.
Do commissions determine our safety ranking?
They should not. Commercial arrangements must be disclosed and kept separate from evidence classifications.
Primary references and source limitations
Official rules have jurisdiction and product limits. A broker's own asset list documents a provider claim, not independent execution verification.
Explore the complete evidence-led research library
Start with the question you need to resolve, then follow official documents and the connected broker dossiers. These research hubs do not rank services by referral commission or promised outcomes.
