Who is behind this

This site is researched, written and edited by one person, who has not put their name to it.

You should trust it less for that, and it would be strange to pretend otherwise on a page whose whole job is to say who is responsible. An anonymous directory about where to put your money is asking you to take its word, which is the one thing every page here tells you not to do.

What is offered instead of a name is everything below: every figure carries the document it came from and the day somebody read it, the weights behind every score are published in full, and the records that nobody could confirm are marked as such rather than quietly averaged in with the rest. That is a weaker thing than a named editor with a reputation to lose. It is not nothing.

26

records, each researched

95

sources cited, with dates

4 of 16

prop firms and exchanges whose own pages answered

5

guides

The third number is the one worth reading twice. Most of these companies do not answer an ordinary request for their own published figures — a research request gets a 403 — so most records here were built from registers, filings and regulators’ own notices rather than from the company. Where that is true the page says so, and the score carries a component for it, because a directory that lets “we could not check” outrank “we checked and it was worse than we thought” is measuring the wrong thing.

1. The documents first. Company registers, regulators’ own registers, statutory filings, enforcement notices and charging documents — read, not summarised from somewhere else. Every fact on a record page carries the source it came from and the day it was read.
2. Then the figures. Spreads, fees, drawdown rules, splits. Published by the company where the company publishes them, and marked as unread where it does not.
3. Then the score, from weights that are printed. Nothing is weighted in private. A component nobody could measure is excluded and the rest are renormalised, rather than scored zero — no data is not a bad score, it is no score.
4. Then it is checked again, daily. Every licence this site publishes is compared against the regulator’s own register once a day. A disagreement becomes a finding for an editor, never an automatic correction: a scraper is wrong often enough that letting it rewrite a record would eventually publish a falsehood about a real company.

The full weights and what each component means are on the methodology page.

• —Advice. Nothing here tells you what to do with your money, and a high score is not a recommendation — it is a statement about published figures and checkable documents.
• —Complete. Twenty-six companies out of thousands. A company absent from these lists has not been judged and found wanting; it has not been looked at.
• —A news site. Records are researched on a date and that date is printed on them. Something that happened this morning is not here yet.
• —A review aggregator. A review counts towards a score only after a person has checked the evidence behind it, and the count of checked and unchecked is shown either way.

It will be. Records here have already been corrected against the documents — a prop firm’s founding year, a split that turned out to be the top of a ladder rather than what a funded trader is paid — and those corrections are written into the record rather than quietly applied.

If a figure here is wrong, the fastest fix is the document that proves it. There is no contact address published yet, which is a gap and is being treated as one. If you have dealt with one of these companies yourself, the review box on its page takes that, and the privacy page says exactly what happens to what you write.