Forex & prop trading terminology
- Spread
- The difference between the bid and ask prices. A quoted minimum is not an observed average.
- Trading commission
- A trading charge, separate from any referral commission paid to an IB.
- Per side / round turn
- Per side applies to an opening or closing transaction; round turn covers opening and closing. Always check the volume and currency basis.
- Swap / overnight financing
- A debit or credit for holding a position overnight, depending on the instrument and direction.
- Balance / equity
- Balance reflects booked transactions. Equity also reflects floating profit or loss; use the provider’s exact risk formula.
- Drawdown
- Static, trailing and end-of-day rules use different reference points. Maximum daily loss and maximum overall loss are distinct limits.
- Prop firm / funded account
- Here, prop firm refers to a trading evaluation or capital-allocation provider. A funded stage may be simulated or live; the profile states the program’s published setup.
- Withdrawal / reward payout
- A broker withdrawal returns money from a client account. A prop reward payout is paid under the program contract and profit-split conditions.
Provider examples and definitions: IC Markets Help Centre ↗ · FTMO: How it works ↗
Launch edition: provisional terms ratings
All 32 broker and prop-firm profiles now have a four-pillar editorial review. Numeric scores assess published terms within the stated scope, not data completeness or tested service outcomes. A provisional aggregate is displayed only when all four pillars have numeric assessments, using the original rubric weights. If a pillar is unscored, the total is withheld; individual criterion assessments remain available. Missing scores are never replaced with zero or an invented value. The complete quality rating below still requires all four pillars.
Terms anchors: 1–2 severe established disadvantages; 3–4 material weaknesses; 5–6 mixed or ordinary terms with meaningful limits; 7–8 favorable terms with explicit limitations; 9–10 exceptional supported advantages. These are qualitative editorial bands, not a statistically measured peer ranking. Official claims remain provider claims.
You can submit a score sheet later. Record the entity/program, four pillar scores, reasons and evidence. New submissions are reviewed before replacing published scores; XM’s publisher proposal stays separate from the weighted assessment.
Download bilingual score sheet (CSV) ↓Prop-firm community scores
Prop-firm display scores equal the publicly displayed Trustpilot numeric rating multiplied by two. An unavailable source score has no numeric fallback. FINEX editorial exceptions, including E8 Markets 8.0/10, are labelled separately. These community scores are not independent quality or payout tests.
Quality, with reasons.
FINEX quality ratings assess client protections, economic costs and service conditions using documented evidence and observed outcomes. They are editorial judgments, not a guarantee of safety or returns. The former data-completeness score has been retired and is not relabelled as quality.
Four weighted pillars
| Pillar | Brokers | Prop firms |
|---|---|---|
| Legal protection | 30% | 25% |
| Total costs | 25% | 25% |
| Withdrawals / payouts | 25% | 30% |
| Trading conditions | 20% | 20% |
Overall = sum of each pillar’s 1–10 score × its weight. Round the final sum once to one decimal. Eight points fill eight of ten stars. An unscored pillar blocks the assessed overall score; weights are never redistributed over missing pillars.
Legal protection
Brokers: verify the exact contracting entity, current permissions on the regulator’s register, client-money segregation, negative-balance protection and applicable complaints/compensation routes. A group licence does not cover every entity.
Prop firms: assess the service contract, company identity, jurisdiction, simulated/live roles, termination rights and dispute process. Company registration is not a brokerage licence; simulated evaluation services are not automatically penalised for being simulated.
Total costs
Brokers: compare measured spread plus round-turn commission, overnight financing, conversion, inactivity and withdrawal charges. Benchmark the same instrument, lot size, account, currency and observation window. Advertised minimum spreads alone are insufficient.
Prop firms: compare challenge, activation, subscription, reset, trading and payout fees, refunds and add-ons for the same account size and program type. Include a first-cycle cost and a failed-evaluation/reset scenario.
Withdrawals / payouts
Brokers: assess actual completed withdrawals, total receipt time, fees, accessible methods, return-to-source and KYC rules, unexplained delays and complaints resolution. Separate internal processing from bank receipt.
Prop firms: assess objective eligibility, profit split, buffers, caps, consistency rules, waiting cycles, denials and appeal rights, alongside completed payout evidence. A high advertised split alone does not establish easy or reliable payouts.
Trading conditions
Brokers: assess measured execution, slippage, rejection/requote rates, outages and order controls under comparable market sessions, plus strategy restrictions. More platforms or higher leverage do not automatically earn more points.
Prop firms: assess precise daily/overall drawdown and reset formulas, news/weekend/EA restrictions, consistency requirements and proportionate breach rules. Separate Forex/CFD from futures and evaluation from funded stages.
Crypto exchange editorial ratings
FINEX publishes an editorial rating for each exchange using the stated review scope and available public information. These are FINEX judgements, not Trustpilot conversions or independent tests of execution, custody, solvency or withdrawals. The Trustpilot rating and review count are shown separately on each profile; if Trustpilot does not display a numeric score, none is inferred. Country, contracting entity and product affect the applicable terms.
| Crypto pillar | Weight | What the estimate considers |
|---|---|---|
| Legal scope & protections | 30% | Applicable entity, country access and clarity of disclosed client protections. |
| Spot trading costs | 25% | Published maker/taker fees and visible exceptions; not independently measured execution cost. |
| Funding & withdrawals | 20% | Clarity of published methods, limits, network fees and processing rules; not tested payment reliability. |
| Security disclosures | 25% | Scope and verifiability of public security/reserve disclosures; PoR does not establish all liabilities or continuous access. |
Scoring anchors
| Score | Evidence-based interpretation |
|---|---|
| 1–2 | Documented serious shortcomings: material legal/contract misrepresentation, unjustified fees or denials, or severe execution/rule failures. |
| 3–4 | Material weaknesses versus comparable services, supported by measured outcomes or applicable terms. |
| 5–6 | Acceptable compared with the peer group, with meaningful costs, restrictions or protection limits. |
| 7–8 | Strong compared with the peer group, with documented protections, competitive costs and outcomes; remaining limitations are explicit. |
| 9–10 | Outstanding, consistently demonstrated in the defined scope, with no unresolved material conflicts. Ten is not zero risk. |
These are FINEX editorial anchors, not regulatory grades. A reviewer must justify each numerical pillar score with its scope, dated evidence, peer comparison and relevant outcomes; no points are awarded merely for filling in fields.
Minimum evidence for assessed quality
- Legal: applicable contract plus independent register checks where authorisation applies; document the rights available to that client country.
- Costs: complete cost scenarios and at least five comparable providers. Record prices, dates, assumptions and promotion exclusions.
- Withdrawals/payouts: at least three documented requests in the previous 90 days, including failures/delays, and two methods where available. State sample size and limits; three cases do not establish a population success rate. Redact customer details.
- Trading: documented execution/spread observations across at least five sessions and 30 orders for brokers; for prop firms, reproduce drawdown/reset calculations and test permitted-rule scenarios. Distinguish measured results from provider claims.
These thresholds are FINEX review requirements, not a request to deposit money or trade. No live account opening, financial transaction or test withdrawal is performed automatically. For an evidence-assessed score, missing or conflicting material evidence means pending assessment, never an invented neutral or low score. A separately labelled preliminary estimate may be published only as described above.
FINEX editorial ratings
The IC Markets, Exness, XM, Vantage, Axi and HFM scores are FINEX editorial ratings approved for publication by FINEX. They are not independent live-test results or weighted totals of completed pillar reviews. Each profile shows the scope, criteria notes and source limitations.
Preliminary editorial estimates
FINEX may show a preliminary estimate based on current published terms. It uses the same four-pillar weights, displays each estimated pillar, its evidence date and a confidence label, and is not an independently tested or evidence-assessed quality rating. Preliminary estimates are excluded from verified quality rankings. Missing or conflicting information lowers only the affected estimate and remains explained on the profile.
Review policy and conflicts of interest}
Use one exact entity/account/program/country scope. A material fee, legal, payout or rule change triggers reassessment; source checks older than 90 days require renewal before a new reviewed rating. Keep dated rubric versions and reasons for changes. Affiliate revenue is excluded from the formula. Provider claims and user reviews are leads, not proof of actual payout or execution reliability.
Cross-checking external sources
Community feedback, editorial analysis and market statistics serve different purposes. FINEX preserves each source, date and original scale.
Review sources and evidence →