Our Methodology

CompareForexBrokers scores each FCA-regulated broker on more than 100 data points across eight weighted criteria, trading costs heaviest at 25%. Every scored broker is reviewed on a live UK account, opened at the broker’s FCA-authorised entity, funded in GBP and traded.

Summary

The model exists to answer one question: which FCA-regulated broker fits a given UK trader, and on what evidence. We cover 27 brokers and score 26 of them against the same eight criteria, weight cost most heavily because it is what you pay on every trade, and state on each of our broker reviews the basis behind it: a live UK account opened at the broker’s FCA-authorised entity, funded in GBP and traded by Justin Grossbard and David Levy. Nothing here depends on a broker paying us. This method sits within the wider story of who runs CompareForexBrokers and how the site operates.

How the score is built

Each of the eight criteria is scored 0 to 10 based on the data points under it. The overall score is the sum of each criterion’s score multiplied by its weight, so a criterion scored 8 out of 10 at a 25% weight contributes 2.0 to a weighted total out of 10. That total, expressed out of 100, is the CFB Score on every review, and the star rating beside it is the same figure to one decimal place on a five-star scale.

Our testing basis: live UK accounts

Honesty about evidence is the point of this section. Every broker we review was tested on a live account opened at its UK FCA-regulated entity, funded in GBP and traded, by Justin Grossbard and David Levy. That basis supports first-hand claims about onboarding, funding and platform behaviour. markets.com is a status record rather than a scored review and carries no basis label.

Two formal measurements sit separately from that basis, and each review says where it stands on both. Spread figures are the tested modal value recorded under our three-day IceFX protocol wherever we have run it, which is most of the set as of July 2026; for the remaining brokers, whose UK spreads are dynamic or unpublished, the review shows the broker’s advertised “from” rate with its source and access date. Execution-latency and slippage figures are published only where our EA-based measurement has been run for that broker; until then, the execution section describes the broker’s published approach rather than our own timings.

The eight weighted criteria

Why these weights

Cost dominates because it compounds. A trader pays the spread and commission on every position, so a small edge there outweighs a glossier platform or a longer education library. Trust comes next because an FCA failure or a frozen withdrawal costs more than any spread saving. The remaining criteria matter, but they sit below cost and trust for a reason.

Live-account testing process

Each review’s account is opened at the broker’s UK FCA entity and funded in GBP, so the costs and protections we record are the ones a UK retail client actually gets. We place trades across different sessions and conditions, log the fills, and record withdrawal timing on the way out. Funding in the wrong currency or on an offshore entity would distort the numbers, so we do neither.

Spread testing with IceFX SpreadMonitor

Spread is the heaviest single input, so we measure it rather than quote it.

Tool

We use IceFX SpreadMonitor, which records live spreads on MT4 in real time, so every reading is an observed value rather than the broker’s “from” marketing number.

Symbols

Testing leads with the pairs UK traders use most: GBP/USD, EUR/GBP and GBP/JPY, alongside EUR/USD and the other majors.

Protocol

Spreads are recorded at 09:00, 12:00 and 16:00 London time across three consecutive trading days on a live account, and we publish the modal value alongside the test date and the account type. The three fixed times take in the London morning, midday and the London to New York overlap, so the published value reflects the hours UK traders actually trade rather than one favourable window.

Where a broker’s spreads have not yet been recorded under this protocol, or its UK spreads are dynamic and unpublished, its review shows the broker’s advertised “from” figure with the source and access date instead. A tested modal value replaces the advertised figure once the three-day recording for that broker is complete, as it is for the brokers recorded in July 2026.

Account types tested

Where a broker offers both a commission-free standard account and a raw-spread account, we test both, because the cheaper headline often carries the more expensive total once commission is added.

Execution-speed testing with MT4 EAs

A tight spread is worthless if the fill is slow or rejected, so execution is measured with purpose-built tools. Where the measurement below has not yet been run for a broker, its review describes the broker’s published execution approach and says the timing figures are pending; we do not publish latency or slippage numbers we have not recorded.

ExTest_ForExpat

This expert advisor places and logs orders automatically, recording execution time and slippage so the result is not a hand-timed guess.

Broker Latency Tester EA

It measures round-trip latency to the broker’s server. Routing for UK-facing brokers leads through LD4 in London, with NY4 in New York secondary, so we test against the infrastructure a UK account uses.

Trust and regulation scoring

This criterion is built on FCA evidence. We record the firm’s FCA authorisation and Firm Reference Number, how long it has been FCA-authorised, its FOS membership, whether client money carries FSCS cover, any listed parent, and any prior FCA enforcement. Each review links the broker’s FCA register entry so the reader can confirm the authorisation independently.

Platform scoring

Platforms are scored on breadth and stability. We look at which of MT4, MT5, cTrader and TradingView a broker supports for UK clients, how complete each integration is, and how the proprietary platform holds up under load. A broker that only offers a thin web app scores below one with a stable, full MetaTrader or cTrader setup.

Customer service testing

We make three contact attempts per broker across different times of the UK business day and judge each response on speed, accuracy and whether the answer is technically correct rather than a scripted deflection. A fast reply that gets the regulation or the fees wrong scores worse than a slower, correct one.

Range of markets

Each broker is scored on the breadth a UK trader can actually access: forex pairs, indices, commodities, share CFDs, ETFs and treasuries. Crypto CFDs are banned for UK retail consumers under PS20/10, so they are not a scored UK retail market. Where a broker offers crypto only to professional or non-UK clients, the review says exactly that.

Education and funding

Education covers the demo account, in-platform training, webinars and written guides, weighted lightly because it helps newcomers more than it moves a serious trader’s results. Funding covers GBP deposit and withdrawal methods, speed, fees and base-currency support, because slow or costly withdrawals are a real friction even at a cheap broker.

Update cadence

Reviews are revisited at least every 90 days, and immediately after a fee change, platform launch, change to UK permissions, or FCA enforcement action. We change the substance and re-date the page when the substance changes, so a new date means the content behind it changed rather than a cosmetic refresh.

What we don’t do

We do not give personal financial advice or recommendations to individuals. Bonuses and incentives are not featured, which the FCA bans for retail clients anyway. Crypto CFDs are not promoted to retail traders, because they are banned. And we do not sell ranking positions; a broker cannot pay to move up the model.