Research Methodology

The Six Assessment Axes

• Disclosure clarity — can a careful reader reconstruct how the platform operates from its own published materials?
• Cost transparency — are spreads, commissions, financing and ancillary fees stated in one accessible place?
• Order-type coverage — which order types exist, and are protective orders held server-side?
• Risk tooling — margin visibility, liquidation rules, exposure limits and account safeguards.
• Data and charting quality — feed sourcing, indicator depth and analysis workflow.
• Support and documentation — responsiveness, channel availability and the quality of help material.

Evidence Sources

We use three classes of evidence. Primary documentation published by the platform itself carries the most weight for specifications. Industry data — regulatory registers, published market-structure research and standard fee benchmarks — provides the comparison baseline. Aggregated user reports across public forums and review databases indicate where documented behaviour and lived experience diverge.

Financial Research Inputs

Market analysis informs how we weight each axis. A platform serving short-horizon traders is assessed more strictly on execution transparency and cost, because those factors dominate outcomes at high turnover. A platform serving long-horizon participants is assessed more strictly on financing terms and account safeguards. Weighting is documented rather than intuitive.

Scoring

Each axis is scored on a five-point scale and combined into a single editorial figure. The score expresses structure and disclosure quality — never a prediction of profitability and never a recommendation. The figure shown in our RORMarkets review should be read alongside the written analysis, not in isolation.

What We Deliberately Exclude

• Performance claims, testimonials and outcome imagery.
• Any assessment influenced by commercial arrangements — we hold none.
• Speculation about a platform's internal operations without documentation.

Limitations

Platform features, fee schedules and jurisdictional availability change without notice. Our research describes a platform as documented at the time of review. Readers should always verify current terms directly, and should treat every study here as an educational reference rather than as due diligence performed on their behalf. See our editorial policy for the standards governing publication and correction.

Review Cadence

Manhattan Trading Desk re-examines each platform study at least twice yearly. Material changes trigger an immediate revision, and the review period is displayed at the top of the affected page.