Reviews Methodology

This Reviews Methodology explains how The Market Periodical evaluates and rates the products we cover, and the standards that keep those reviews independent. It reflects the integrity principles in our Code of Ethics and our transparency about commercial links in our Affiliate Disclosure.

What we review

We review products that our readers use to access cryptocurrency, forex, and stock markets, including:

• Cryptocurrency exchanges and trading platforms.
• Crypto wallets, custodial and self-custody.
• Brokers offering stocks, forex, and other instruments.
• Trading tools, analytics platforms, and related financial products.

Our review philosophy

Our reviews are independent, evidence-based, and hands-on wherever practical. We assess products against consistent criteria rather than marketing claims, we test features directly when we can, and we verify details such as fees, supported assets, and regulatory status against primary sources. A review reflects what we found, not what a provider wanted us to find. As with all our content, a review is information, not financial advice, and should not be treated as a recommendation to buy or use any product.

Our scoring criteria

We score each product across the areas below. Weightings are approximate and can vary by product category—for example, security carries more weight for a self-custody wallet than a niche feature might—but the framework stays consistent so reviews are comparable.

Criterion	What we assess	Approximate weight
Security	Custody model, fund protection, two-factor authentication, encryption, cold storage, track record on breaches and incident response.	25%
Fees & costs	Trading fees, spreads, deposit and withdrawal costs, hidden charges, and overall value.	20%
Features & asset coverage	Range of supported assets and markets, order types, tools, and useful platform capabilities.	15%
Ease of use / UX	Sign-up and verification flow, interface clarity, mobile experience, and how easily new users can get started.	15%
Regulation & transparency	Licensing and regulatory standing, disclosure of ownership and terms, and clarity about how the product works.	10%
Customer support	Availability, responsiveness, support channels, and the quality and accuracy of help resources.	10%
Liquidity / reliability	Market depth, execution and uptime, and consistency of performance under load.	5%

How we derive a final rating

Each criterion is scored on a scale of 1 to 10 based on our testing and research. We combine those scores using the weightings above to produce an overall rating, which we present on a 5-point (or 5-star) scale so readers can compare products at a glance. The written review always explains the score: what a product does well, where it falls short, and who it may or may not suit. The number summarises our findings; the words justify them.

Our testing and data-collection process

Wherever practical, we create an account and use a product directly to assess sign-up, interface, features, and support first-hand. We record objective data—fees, supported assets, regulatory registrations, and security features—from primary sources such as the provider’s own documentation, official fee schedules, and regulatory registers, and we confirm details rather than relying on marketing copy. Where hands-on testing is not possible for a given feature, we say so and base our assessment on verifiable public information.

Independence: we do not sell ratings

Our ratings are never for sale. Reviews are not influenced by affiliate commissions or advertising, and we do not accept payment, gifts, or any other benefit in exchange for a rating, a ranking, or a favourable mention. A provider cannot pay to improve its score, approve a review before publication, or have a negative review removed. Some links in our reviews may earn us a commission, which never affects our scores or conclusions—details are in our Affiliate Disclosure, and the principles behind this stance are set out in our Code of Ethics.

How and when we update reviews

Markets and products change, and reviews can go out of date. We periodically re-evaluate the products we cover and update reviews when something material changes—such as a fee change, a new regulatory development, a significant feature launch, or a security incident. Where a review has been substantially updated, we make that clear so readers know how current our assessment is.

How to flag an inaccuracy

If you believe a review contains an error—an out-of-date fee, an incorrect feature, or a misstated fact—please tell us. Email [email protected] or follow the steps in our Corrections Policy. We check every report against primary sources and correct confirmed errors promptly and transparently.

Contact us

For questions about our reviews or this methodology, contact [email protected], or reach us through our contact page.

Last reviewed: 2026