Five categories. Published weights.
A score you cannot reproduce is a marketing number. Here's every weight, every fixed anchor, and exactly what each is built from.
Every category, and what it's worth.
Every input below is a real, sourced figure. Open a category to see its exact split.
What trading costs you, on the account you'd realistically open.
What goes into this, and the split
- All-in cost per standard lot (spread + commission) on the broker's cheapest genuine retail account, in the region where it's cheapest — 70% of this category
- Minimum deposit — 30% of this category
Who stands behind the company that would hold your account, and what happens if it fails.
What goes into this, and the split
- Number of top-tier regulators with an entity that holds its own licence and genuinely accepts retail clients — 60% of this category
- Best investor-compensation scheme offered by any of the broker's entities — 30% of this category
- Total number of regulators across all entities — 10% of this category
Which platforms you can trade on, and how much you can trade.
What goes into this, and the split
- Number of trading platforms offered — 50% of this category
- Number of tradable instruments — 50% of this category
Whether the broker lets you trade the way you want to.
What goes into this, and the split
- Hedging allowed — 40% of this category
- Scalping allowed — 40% of this category
- A genuinely low-minimum retail account is available — 20% of this category
Each broker's own published loss percentage from its risk warning. A lower published loss rate scores higher.
What goes into this, and the split
- Broker's own published percentage of retail clients who lose money trading CFDs with it, from its current risk warning
Weights and within-category splits are fixed for the life of a methodology version and aren't tuned per broker, per region or per category page.
Every input is scored against a fixed scale, not against the other brokers.
A broker's score doesn't move because another broker joined, left or had a figure corrected. Each input maps onto the same 0–100 scale every time, using the anchors below.
| Input | 100-score anchor | 0-score anchor |
|---|---|---|
| All-in cost per lot | US$5 | US$15 |
| Minimum deposit (Cost category) | $0 | $1,000 |
| Minimum deposit (Trading conditions' "low-minimum" input) | $0 | $100 |
| Top-tier regulator count | 9 | 0 |
| Total regulator count | 15 | 0 |
| Platform count | 5 | 1 |
| Instrument count | 3,000 | 100 |
| Client outcomes (% of retail accounts losing money) | 50% | 90% |
A value beyond either anchor is capped at 0 or 100, not extrapolated past it.
Sourcing rules, the retail-only rule, and what happens when a figure is missing.
Where the numbers come from
A typical spread is the broker's own published average. Where a broker doesn't publish one, a third-party tested figure is accepted only when at least two independent sources agree to within about 0.1 pip — a single test, or two tests that disagree, isn't enough, and the broker's cost category is left unscored rather than guessed. Regulator entities, licence numbers and compensation schemes are checked against the broker's own regulation page or the regulator's own public register — a review site's summary is corroboration, never the source of record.
Only regulators that accept retail clients count
Some brokers hold licences whose local entity doesn't onboard retail clients in practice. The licence is real, but it protects nobody trading with the broker's retail-facing entity. Those don't count toward the regulation category, though they still appear on the broker's profile for completeness.
When a figure is missing
Client outcomes: if a broker hasn't published a current loss percentage we could verify, it gets the median score of the brokers that have. Never zero, and the profile says so. Hedging or scalping: if we couldn't confirm either independently, it scores neutral (50), because an unconfirmed fact isn't a confirmed no. The profile says which applies. Cost: if a broker has no all-in cost that clears the sourcing bar above, it isn't scored at all. It's marked "Not yet ranked" instead of getting a guessed or averaged cost, and it still shows real data for every other category.
Nothing scores 100, and nothing ever will.
Scores are normalised on a curve, so no broker can reach 100. A perfect score would claim we'd measured everything about a firm, which we haven't: internal risk management, ownership changes, and how a firm behaves in a genuine crisis all sit outside what this index can see.
The curve is a single calibration constant, computed once from the top raw score under the categories and anchors above, then applied to every broker's raw score the same way. It is reviewed annually, or sooner if a change to the categories, weights or anchors would meaningfully shift what the top score could be — it is not silently recalculated every time a broker's figures are corrected or a new broker is added.
- Practical ceiling
- ~92
- Highest score right now
- 92.00
- Calibration last set
- 25 Sep 2026
Affiliate money, stated plainly.
We're paid when a reader opens an account through a link here. That's a conflict of interest. It can't be removed, so it's disclosed and structurally separated from scoring instead.
Scores come from the published method, and no commission figure is an input.
No broker reads, approves or amends a review before it goes live, and we don't send drafts for comment — ever.
Labelled slots sold on a public rate card by placement. An advertiser buys the space — never a position, a badge, a score or a mention.
If a figure behind a score is wrong, email corrections@brokersnest.com. Scores come from the published method, and no commission figure is an input. For anything else, see our Contact page.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Between 53% and 80% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. A high score in this index means a broker is cheaper, better regulated, or offers a wider range than its peers — it does not mean trading with it is likely to be profitable, and it is not a recommendation to open an account. BrokersNest is a research publisher, not a licensed adviser, and nothing on this page is personal financial advice.