Editorial Policy & Affiliate Disclosure

Each review follows the same process: we gather information from the provider’s official sources and from recent, independent user experience, assess it against a fixed set of criteria, and document who the provider suits and who should avoid it. Our score is an editorial judgment based on that assessment.

Each category is scored against five weighted dimensions chosen for what actually matters there — a prop firm and a VPS are not judged by the same yardstick. Prop firms weight rules & costs, payouts, platform & execution, transparency and support; brokers weight regulation and trading costs more heavily; VPS providers weight reliability and latency; futures prop firms weight their evaluation and drawdown models; and trading tools weight accuracy and workflow fit. The exact dimensions and weights for every category are listed on the relevant review and comparison pages.

Where a review has a complete set of sub-scores, the overall score is the weighted average of those dimensions — it is computed, not set by hand, and each sub-score carries a short reason. Some older reviews still show an earlier editorial overall while their full breakdown is being added; these are labelled as a legacy editorial score and marked as an update in progress until they are re-verified. Editorial scores are based on category-specific criteria. Commercial relationships do not determine ratings or ranking positions.

Every review carries a status. “Verified” means we checked it against the provider’s published terms on the stated date. “Review scheduled” means a routine re-check is due — the content is not necessarily wrong. “Update in progress” means some details are still being completed or re-verified. “Provider change flagged” means we are aware of a relevant change and are reviewing it. We never set a check date automatically or from the build; a date only appears when a real check happened.

A score is our editorial judgment of how a provider compares within its category at the time of review — not a promise of results, safety, or that the provider will suit you. Conditions change frequently, evaluations can be failed, and you should always confirm the current terms directly before committing.

TheTradingExpert is funded through disclosed partnerships: when you open an account through some outbound links, the provider may pay us a commission at no extra cost to you. We also build first-party products such as Aurion EA. We do not sell ratings, accept payment for placement, or charge providers to be reviewed. This model is what lets the research stay free.

We do not invent specific figures. Because fees, profit splits and payout schedules change frequently, we describe them qualitatively and link to the provider for the current numbers rather than quoting figures that could go stale. Our rating reflects our overall editorial assessment, not a claim about any single unverified statistic.

Some outbound links are affiliate or partner links and may generate a commission at no extra cost to you. These are disclosed on the relevant pages and use appropriate link attributes. Affiliate links may generate commissions but do not influence ratings, rankings, or which providers we choose to cover.

Commercial relationships and editorial conclusions are kept separate. A provider being a partner does not earn it a higher rating, a better placement, or more favourable wording. Our credibility depends on this separation, and we treat it as non-negotiable.

Products we own — such as Aurion EA — are clearly labelled as first-party products and are presented separately from independent review content. We do not review our own products as if they were independent.

Provider terms change frequently. We update reviews and guides as conditions change and as we verify new information. Significant updates are reflected in the page’s “updated” date.

If you believe a page contains an error or out-of-date information, email info@thetradingexpert.com and we will review it. Accuracy matters more to us than being first.