Trust Document

Methodology

How we evaluate broker transparency. What counts as evidence. Why awards can be withheld. Everything about our process, made public.

Purpose

The Trading Integrity Awards recognises brokers that demonstrate verifiable transparency in execution quality, order routing, and public disclosure. The awards do not measure trading performance, profitability, or customer satisfaction. They measure the integrity of disclosure.

Our operating premise is that retail traders deserve access to the same quality of execution transparency that institutional participants expect. Brokers that voluntarily publish detailed, accessible, and verifiable execution data contribute to raising the transparency standard across the industry.

This is an editorial initiative. We are not a regulatory body, a certification authority, or a financial advisor. Our assessments represent independent editorial opinions based on publicly available evidence.

Scoring Model

Each nominee is assessed against five dimensions. Total possible score: 100 points. A minimum threshold of 60 points is required for award consideration.

Public Metrics Availability

25 pts

Does the broker publish real-time or regularly updated execution metrics (fill ratios, execution speed, slippage) on a publicly accessible page without requiring account registration?

Routing Disclosure Clarity

20 pts

Does the broker describe its order routing methodology publicly, including A-book/B-book classification, SOR logic, and liquidity provider relationships?

Execution Policy Specificity

20 pts

Does the broker publish a detailed execution policy covering price priority rules, latency expectations, re-quote policies, and order handling procedures beyond standard regulatory boilerplate?

Analytics Depth

20 pts

Does the broker provide quantitative execution analytics with historical data, instrument-level breakdowns, and verifiable timestamps?

Evidence Quality

15 pts

Are the evidence sources accessible without registration, timestamped, and specific enough to verify the claims? Marketing pages with qualitative claims do not meet this threshold.

Award Categories

Transparency (Public Metrics)

Recognition for making real-time or periodically updated execution metrics publicly accessible without requiring account registration or login.

Weight: 25% of total score

Routing Clarity

Recognition for publicly disclosing order routing methodology, including A-book/B-book classification, smart order routing infrastructure, and liquidity provider relationships.

Weight: 20% of total score

Analytics Openness

Recognition for the availability and depth of execution analytics, including KPIs, fill ratios, slippage data, and latency breakdowns presented to the public.

Weight: 20% of total score

Execution Policy Clarity

Recognition for the specificity and accessibility of published execution policies, including price priority rules, order handling procedures, and latency disclosure.

Weight: 20% of total score

Conflict-of-Interest Mitigation

Recognition for publicly disclosing measures taken to mitigate conflicts of interest, including dealing desk independence, principal trading disclosure, and risk management separation.

Weight: 15% of total score

Operational Trust Signals

Recognition for transparency of support processes, escalation paths, and operational contact disclosures that allow clients to verify responsiveness before opening an account.

Weight: 10% of total score

Core Principles

Evidence Only

Every assessment is based exclusively on publicly accessible documentation. We do not use private communications, insider information, or unverifiable claims. If a broker's evidence page requires login to access, it does not count toward our evaluation.

No Voting

Awards are determined through editorial review against defined criteria. There is no public or private voting mechanism. No reader polls, no industry panel votes, no "people's choice" categories. This eliminates the possibility of vote manipulation.

No Paid Placements

No broker can pay to receive, influence, or guarantee an award. There are no sponsorship tiers, no premium listings, and no affiliate arrangements. If a broker offers payment for recognition, the offer is declined and documented.

Awards May Be Withheld

If no nominee in a given category meets our minimum evidence threshold, the award for that category is not issued. We publish "No Award Issued" with an explanation. We believe withholding recognition when warranted strengthens the credibility of recognition when granted.

Quarterly Review Cycle

Evaluations are conducted quarterly. Each issue represents a fresh review of publicly available evidence as of that quarter. A broker that did not win in Q1 may win in Q2 if it publishes improved disclosures. Similarly, a previous winner may lose recognition if evidence quality declines.

Corrections & Disputes

If a nominee believes our assessment contains a factual error or missed a publicly available evidence source, they may submit a correction request via our contact page. Corrections are reviewed within 14 business days. If accepted, the relevant issue is updated and the correction is logged in our changelog.

Data Sources

All evaluations are based on publicly accessible pages from nominee websites. Evidence sources must meet the following criteria:

Accessible without account registration or login
Published on the nominee's official domain
Containing specific, verifiable claims (not marketing generalisations)
Available at the time of quarterly review (archived via Wayback Machine as backup)

We do not use third-party review sites, forum posts, social media content, or information obtained through private communication as evidence sources.

Review Process

Nominee Identification

Brokers are identified through public regulatory registries, industry directories, and editorial research. Self-nomination is not currently accepted.

Evidence Collection

All publicly accessible pages relevant to our assessment categories are catalogued and archived. URLs are verified and screenshots are taken.

Category Assessment

Each nominee is scored against the five dimensions for each applicable category. Scores are assigned independently by at least two editorial reviewers.

Editorial Review

Results are reviewed by the editorial team for consistency, accuracy, and fairness. Rationale text is drafted for each award decision.

Publication

Results are published in the quarterly issue with full evidence links, rationale text, and scoring context. All nominees are notified via publicly listed contact channels.

Questions about our methodology?

Corrections and clarification requests are welcomed.