Screen
Reject brokers that fail the minimum trust and transparency bar before feature comparisons begin.
The point of the methodology is not to pretend every broker can be reduced to a neat mathematical truth. It is to make the judgment process visible enough that readers can understand, challenge and reuse it.
Reject brokers that fail the minimum trust and transparency bar before feature comparisons begin.
Look at total cost, execution quality and operational usability on a like-for-like basis.
Turn the evidence into a readable judgment that admits uncertainty where uncertainty remains.
A broker must survive trust and transparency checks before its features matter much.
Claims count more when the site can show where the confidence comes from.
Reviews should say what remains unresolved instead of padding toward certainty.
Entity mismatch plus vague withdrawal handling should stop a recommendation quickly.
Decent brokers can still get downgraded when execution evidence stays thin.
An otherwise ordinary broker can climb when costs, operations and trust stay unusually clean together.