How broker comparison sites make money, and what to check before trusting one
Verdict
- The overwhelming majority of broker comparison sites, including this one, earn through affiliate commission — a broker pays when a referred visitor opens and funds an account, regardless of how the review reads.
- This funding model does not automatically make a comparison dishonest, but it does mean the incentive to rank a paying partner favourably is real and worth checking for, not assuming away.
- The concrete checks that separate a disclosed, evidence-based site from a disguised advert are: whether data claims are individually sourced, whether partner status is disclosed plainly, and whether the site ever shows a partner ranking worse than a non-partner on measured data.
- A comparison site with zero partners ranking worst-in-category on any measured metric, across every table, is itself a signal worth noticing.
- Regulatory bodies in several jurisdictions have specifically warned about undisclosed affiliate relationships in financial comparison content, which is why disclosure is a compliance question, not just an ethics one.
Every broker comparison site has to answer the same question eventually: how does it pay for itself? Almost all of them, including this one, answer it the same way — affiliate commission from the brokers being compared. What varies enormously is what that funding relationship is allowed to do to the actual rankings, and that is the part worth checking rather than assuming.
The affiliate model, plainly
When a comparison site's link leads a visitor to open a real account with a broker, the broker typically pays the site a commission — a flat fee, a share of the client's trading activity, or both. This is the dominant funding model across the industry and is not unique to any one site. The existence of this relationship is not the problem; the question is what it is permitted to influence.
- Affiliate commission is standard across nearly the entire broker-comparison category, disclosed or not.
- The commission structure itself does not tell you whether a specific ranking is honest — that requires checking the actual methodology.
- A site with no affiliate relationships at all is rare, and its absence is not a reliable proxy for objectivity either — funding models vary, but bias can exist regardless of the model.
What the incentive can distort, if unchecked
Left unchecked, an affiliate-funded model creates pressure to rank higher-commission partners more favourably than the underlying data supports, to omit unflattering facts about partners, or to present marketing claims as measured findings. None of this requires deliberate dishonesty — it can happen simply by never building a process that would catch it.
The checks that actually separate disclosed from disguised
A few concrete, checkable signals distinguish a genuinely evidence-based comparison from an affiliate advert wearing a review's format.
- Is every specific data claim (a licence number, a spread figure, a withdrawal time) linked to a named, checkable source, rather than asserted without attribution?
- Does the site plainly disclose which listed entities are paid partners, in a location a visitor would actually see, not buried in a footer link only?
- Has a partner broker ever been shown ranking worse than a non-partner on a specific measured metric, anywhere on the site? If never, across every table, that absence is itself informative.
- Are unfavourable, verifiable facts about a partner (a regulatory warning, a known fee, a genuinely slow withdrawal time) published when true, or consistently absent?
Why this is a compliance question, not only an ethics one
Several financial regulators have issued specific guidance or warnings about affiliate marketing in financial services being presented as independent comparison or review content without adequate disclosure. This is not a hypothetical concern — it is an active regulatory focus area precisely because retail financial decisions (which broker to fund an account with) are exactly the kind of decision undisclosed bias can distort at real cost to the person making it.
Does this site earn money from the brokers it lists?
Yes, primarily through affiliate commission when a visitor opens an account through a listed link — the same model used across nearly the entire broker-comparison industry. Our methodology page states this plainly and describes what that relationship is and isn't allowed to change about the published data.
How do I know if a comparison site is biased toward its partners?
Check whether every data claim is individually sourced, whether partner status is disclosed clearly rather than buried, and — the most concrete test — whether a partner broker is ever shown ranking worse than a non-partner on a specific measured metric anywhere on the site.
Is affiliate commission itself a red flag?
Not by itself — it is the dominant, disclosed funding model across the industry. The red flag is an affiliate relationship combined with an inability to ever show a paying partner underperforming, or unsourced claims presented as measured facts.
Are comparison sites regulated?
Requirements vary by jurisdiction, but several financial regulators have issued specific warnings about undisclosed affiliate relationships in content presented as independent financial comparison or review, treating inadequate disclosure as a genuine compliance issue rather than only an ethical one.