Trust in a publication about money should be conditional, and this page is written to make the conditions visible.
The design principle: verify instead of believe
Every file ends with the same section, a list of searches a reader can run in about fifteen minutes, and a block of links to the registers themselves. That is deliberate. If our conclusion and your search disagree, your search wins, and we want to hear about it. A publication that asks to be believed has to be policed by its readers; a publication that hands over the method can be checked by them.
For the same reason we do not publish a score. A number invites the reader to skip the reasoning, and the reasoning is the only part worth having.
How the site earns
How we make money. We earn a commission on some links on this page. Payment never changes a verdict: platforms carrying regulator warnings are marked as such whether or not they pay us.
What the numbers here are. Win rates, success rates, fees and minimum deposits quoted on this page come from the operator’s own marketing unless we name a register or a regulator’s document as the source. We have not tested any of them and found no independent audit of them.
This is the conflict, stated in one sentence: the site can earn from commercial arrangements, and the companies in this field are the same kind of companies the files are about. Pretending the tension does not exist would be the least trustworthy thing on this page.
What we do about it is structural. Commercial arrangements have no effect on whether a brand gets a file, what the register search returns, or what the verdict card says; a paid placement cannot buy a change to a verdict, and no file is withheld because a search went badly for somebody. No brand covered here is given advance sight of its file or a right of approval over it. Nothing on the site is a recommendation to open an account, and the disclosure above appears on the pages themselves rather than only in the small print.
What we refuse to publish
Invented specifics are the ordinary currency of this genre, and the desk treats them as disqualifying. We do not print a licence number we have not read in a register, a company name that appears in no document, a country of registration nobody has stated, a minimum deposit or a commission rate we cannot source, a user count, a store rating, or a quotation from a review we cannot see. Where a fact of that kind is missing, the file records the gap.
Reasons to hold back
Three, in fairness.
We are a small desk. We search well, but we search a finite number of databases on a finite number of days, and a missed entry is possible.
We do not test the services. Nobody here deposits money, so nothing we write about withdrawals is experience; it is procedure.
We can be wrong about emphasis. A file that records an absence can read as an accusation even when it is written carefully, and the reader is the one who has to keep the distinction in mind.
Corrections
We correct on evidence, not on pressure. A document, a register entry or a published notice will change a file; a demand from a brand's marketing department will not. Corrections are dated on the page, and the contact page sets out how to send one.