Editorial standards
Fact-check, sourcing and corrections
This page states where the numbers on this site come from, what happens when one of them is wrong, and every correction we have made to a factual claim or a regulated disclosure since April 2026. Entries are added when a fix ships, not when we are asked about it.
- Corrections logged
- 6
- Of which our own error
- 3
- Log reviewed
How we source figures
The broker's own published disclosures
Spreads, minimum deposits, commissions, account terms and loss percentages come from what the broker itself publishes — its fee schedule, account pages, legal documents and, where it is a listed company, its filings. Where a broker's compliance team issues wording in writing, that wording is used exactly as issued.
Regulator registers
Licence numbers and regulated status are taken from the register of the regulator concerned, not from the broker's marketing copy. A broker naming a regulator is not evidence it holds that licence — the register is.
Entity, not brand
A brand may operate several entities under different regulators, and the entity a reader would actually open an account with depends on where they live. Figures are recorded per entity and per region. Quoting a brand-level number to every reader is how a page ends up wrong even when no single figure is false — two of the corrections logged below are exactly that failure.
Dates, on the record
Where a figure carries a review date, that date reflects a real check. We do not stamp pages with an automatically-generated current date — a date with no check behind it is a claim we cannot support.
Our corrections policy
We are an affiliate site: brokers pay us commission when a reader opens an account. That is exactly why this page exists. A site paid by the companies it writes about has to be checkable, and a corrections log is the cheapest honest way to be checkable — it is a record of the times we were wrong, published by us, against our own interest.
- We correct the page first and tell you second. The fix ships before the note goes up.
- Corrections are logged here with the date the fix shipped, what we had published, and what is correct. We do not quietly edit a page and leave no trace.
- We do not delete a historic entry from this log. If an entry is itself wrong, it gets a dated addendum — the audit trail is the point.
- Where a correction is the result of our own error, this page says so in those words rather than describing it as an update.
- Where we can stop an error class from recurring in code, we do. Several corrections below are backed by a check that blocks a release if the error is reintroduced — because in each case our own content tooling kept reintroducing it.
The corrections log
Most recent first. Each entry gives the date the fix shipped, what we had published, and what is correct.
- Presentation corrected at the broker's request
Capital.com: one loss percentage was shown to every region instead of the figure for the reader's own entity
- What we published
- A single '89% of retail investor accounts lose money' figure across all four of our regional sites, and in some placements only the short form of the warning underneath the call-to-action.
- What is correct
- The percentage is entity-specific: 74-89% for the EU entity, 61% for the UK entity, 78.48% for the Asia entity. The full warning — beginning 'CFDs are complex instruments…' — belongs everywhere the warning appears, not only beneath a button.
- How we verified it
- Written correction list issued by Capital.com's compliance team, July 2026, recorded in our compliance history at the time.
- What we changed
- Percentages are now resolved per region from the broker record (riskWarningByRegion) rather than a single hard-coded figure; the short-form warning was removed so under-button placements render the full text; the percentage sentence is rendered in bold.
- We got it wrong
Minimum-deposit figures ignored which regional site the reader was on
- What we published
- Every regional site rendered the broker's default minimum deposit in its default currency. UK readers were therefore shown the euro/dollar default rather than the figure that applies to the UK entity — for Plus500, GBP 50. A separate display fault rendered '[object Object]' in place of the minimum deposit in the Key Facts card.
- What is correct
- Minimum deposits are entity-specific and are quoted in the currency of the entity the reader would actually open with.
- How we verified it
- Broker-published account terms for the entity concerned, recorded per region in the broker record.
- What we changed
- Minimum deposits now resolve through a region-aware lookup (src/lib/min-deposit.ts) wherever they are displayed, with the correct currency symbol. A guard (scripts/check-region-min-deposit.mjs) runs before every build and blocks a release that reintroduces a region-blind figure.
- Presentation corrected at the broker's request
Admirals: Estonian FSA references removed, and a blog post built on a licence surrender that had not happened was withdrawn
- What we published
- Admirals presented across category, country and research pages as holding Estonian FSA regulation alongside CySEC and the FCA — described in places as 'triple regulation'. We had also published a blog post whose entire subject was Admirals surrendering its Estonian licence.
- What is correct
- Admirals asked to be presented as CySEC (201/13) and FCA (595450) only. Separately, and this one was our own error: the licence surrender the blog post was built on had already been recorded in our own compliance log as incorrect — the Estonian licence was active at the time we wrote that the broker had dropped it.
- How we verified it
- Written request from Admirals' compliance team, 23 June 2026, for the presentation change; our own compliance log for the incorrect surrender.
- What we changed
- Estonian FSA regulator chips, licence rows and 'triple regulation' prose removed from category, country and research pages; the EU entity is the CySEC-regulated Cyprus entity; two Estonian-FSA events removed from the regulatory-history timeline. The blog post was unpublished and permanently redirected to the Admirals review. A sweep on 27 June 2026 cleared references the first pass had missed, and the same change added a build-blocking linter rule that fails any build reattaching Admirals to the Estonian FSA.
- We got it wrong
Exness was presented as available to EU retail traders. It is not, and has not been since 2019
- What we published
- Our Exness review presented the broker's CySEC entity as serving EU retail clients, and EU-facing calls-to-action pointed European readers at an account signup that would reject them.
- What is correct
- Exness closed retail onboarding to the EU, EEA and UK in 2019 and does not accept retail clients resident in those jurisdictions. The broker's non-EU entities are unaffected and we continue to cover them for the regions where they do operate.
- How we verified it
- Exness's own published country-restrictions page, checked at the time of the correction on 13 June 2026.
- What we changed
- Exness is flagged as not EU-eligible in the broker record, which removes EU-tier calls-to-action; the load-bearing claims in the review were corrected. Subsequent passes through July 2026 removed the broker from EU country and category ranking pages where it should never have appeared. A build-blocking linter rule added 8 July 2026 fails any build that reintroduces a present-tense claim of EU, EEA or UK retail availability for this broker — added because our own content tooling kept reintroducing it.
- We got it wrong
Pepperstone was eligible for our copy-trading listings without offering copy trading
- What we published
- Pepperstone's copy-trading capability was left unrecorded in the broker data, which meant nothing excluded the broker from our copy-trading listings.
- What is correct
- Pepperstone does not offer native copy trading.
- How we verified it
- Confirmed directly with Pepperstone's partnerships team, April 2026.
- What we changed
- Copy trading is now explicitly recorded as unavailable for this broker, which hard-filters it out of the copy-trading listings.
- Presentation corrected at the broker's request
Plus500: a generic ESMA range was shown where the provider's own loss figure applies
- What we published
- The generic industry warning — 'Between 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs' — rather than the figure Plus500 publishes for its own clients. Listing pages also carried no explicit statement that Plus500 is CFDs-only.
- What is correct
- Plus500's own published figure for its EU/EEA entity, Plus500CY Ltd, is 80% of retail investor accounts. The following day the broker specified the exact split it requires between the full warning and the short form used under buttons. Plus500 UK Compliance later set a separate figure for the FCA entity, which is the one shown on our UK site.
- How we verified it
- Wording supplied in writing by Plus500's partnerships team, 22 and 23 April 2026, recorded in our compliance history.
- What we changed
- The broker-specific 80% figure replaced the generic range in both the full and short warnings, and an explicit CFDs-only disclosure was added to all listing pages.
Report an error
If you believe any figure or statement on this site is wrong, email info@fx-brokers.eu with the URL and, if you have one, the source that contradicts us. A link to the broker's own page or the regulator's register is the fastest way to get a fix shipped.
We aim for same-business-day turnaround on factual corrections involving regulator numbers, fees, or trading conditions. You do not need to be a broker or a company to report an error, and we do not require a reason.
Related
- Methodology — how brokers are scored, and the weight given to each category.
- Editorial independence — how commission arrangements are kept out of the scoring.
- Brokers we refused — brokers we evaluated and declined to cover, with reasons.
- Who writes this — the editorial team and how to reach it.