About This Independent Review Site
We test and write about FXCM for Australian readers, and we answer only to those readers.
Rates at the sponsorHow We Test and Score
You are probably here because you are thinking about opening an account with FXCM and you want a second opinion before you commit money. That is the situation we write for. Our team looks at the broker the way a prospective client would, then writes down what we find in plain terms. We open the same account types an Australian resident can open, fund them from our own budget, and trade in modest sizes so we can see how order handling, spreads and execution behave once real money is on the table. We record the results as we go, not from memory afterwards.
Scoring is built from a fixed set of criteria that we publish alongside the review. Each criterion carries a weight, and each weight is set before testing starts, not adjusted once the results are in. That order matters. If a broker turns out to be weaker than we expected on a point we care about, the score falls; we do not go back and rewrite the criteria to soften the outcome. We compare what we observe against the broker's own published terms and against what support staff tell us, and where those disagree we say so.
A score here is one team's structured judgement about a broker at a point in time. It is not a rating agency grade, and it should carry no more authority than the evidence printed next to it.
What We Will Not Do
We do not accept payment for a verdict, a score, a ranking position or a softened paragraph. No broker, affiliate network or marketing agency has ever been offered, and none will be offered, the chance to review a draft before publication. We do not run accounts for readers, take deposits, place trades on anyone's behalf, or hold client money in any form. We are not the broker and we have no ownership or management link to it.
We do not give personal financial advice, and nothing on this site should be read as a recommendation that a particular product suits your circumstances. We do not promise outcomes, and we do not publish performance claims as though they were forecasts.
We also will not pad a page to look thorough. If a point could not be verified, it is marked as unverified or left out rather than dressed up as fact.
Challenging What We Publish
If something here reads wrong to you, say so. Readers who hold an account with the broker often know details that no outside reviewer can see, and we would rather correct a page than defend it. Use the contact form on this site and describe the specific sentence or figure you dispute, together with whatever evidence you can share, such as a statement excerpt with personal details removed, a screenshot of a platform message, or a link to the broker's own terms.
We read every substantive challenge. Where the point is factual and we can check it, we correct the page and add a dated note explaining what changed, so the record stays visible rather than quietly rewritten. Where we disagree, we explain why in the same note. Corrections are never made silently, and a broker's complaint gets the same treatment as a reader's.
We do not remove accurate material because someone finds it inconvenient, and we do not trade a correction for goodwill.
Where the Facts Come From
Most of what we publish comes from first-hand use: our own account statements, platform screenshots, timestamps and support conversations. The rest comes from the broker's public documents, including its client agreement, product disclosure material, fee schedule and the regulatory disclosures it is required to publish in the markets where it operates. We read those documents in full rather than skimming the summary page.
Every figure in a review is checked by a second member of the team against the original source before publication, and pages carry the date they were last verified. When the broker changes its terms, we re-check the affected sections and update the date. If we cannot confirm something from a primary source, we say it is unconfirmed rather than repeating it as fact.
We do not invent details to fill a gap. That includes licence numbers, registration details, addresses and contact routes, none of which appear here unless they are taken directly from an official source.
How the Site Pays
The site is funded by advertising and by commercial arrangements with the broker, disclosed on the pages where they apply. Money of that kind can create pressure to soften a finding, so we separate it from the editorial process: those arrangements buy placement, never a score, a verdict or a favourable sentence. The team that tests and writes does not take instructions from anyone selling advertising.
We do not sell reviews, and we do not offer a paid route to a better rating. If the commercial side of the site ever conflicts with what testing shows, the testing wins and the page says so. Running costs are kept modest, which keeps that promise affordable.
A review tells you how a broker behaved for us, in our accounts, over the period we tested. It cannot tell you how the broker will treat you, how a market will move, or whether a product fits your finances. Treat what you read here as one input among several, and check the broker's current terms yourself before you commit anything.
