Last Updated: September 7, 2025

Finauthority provides independent research, regulatory information, company profiles, ratings and user feedback concerning financial companies and brands operating around the world.

This Research and Rating Methodology explains how we collect information, evaluate financial companies, verify regulatory claims, assess evidence and calculate Finauthority ratings.

Our methodology is designed around five fundamental principles:

Evidence before assumption.

Official sources before promotional claims.

Regulatory status before reputation.

Quality of reviews before quantity of reviews.

Independence before commercial interests.

Finauthority does not attempt to determine whether a company is “good” or “bad” based on a single factor.

Our objective is to provide a structured and transparent assessment based on the information reasonably available at the time of research.

1. About Finauthority

Finauthority is an independent financial company directory, research and review platform operated by:

Legal entity: FinAuthority

Registered office: Národní 135/14, Prague, Hlavní mesto Praha 110 00, Czech Republic

Country of registration: Czech Republic

Website: Finauthority.org

General enquiries: kancelar@finauthority.org

Privacy enquiries: privacy@finauthority.org

Legal enquiries: legal@finauthority.org

Company Review & Verification: check@finauthority.org

Finauthority operates from the Czech Republic while researching financial companies and services internationally.

2. Purpose of This Methodology

This Methodology is intended to explain:

what information Finauthority researches;
which sources we prioritize;
how regulatory claims are verified;
how company identity is established;
how official warnings are treated;
how transparency is assessed;
how user reviews contribute to research;
how supporting evidence is evaluated;
how the Finauthority Score is calculated;
how risk indicators affect scores;
how ratings are updated; and
how commercial relationships are kept separate from research conclusions.

We publish this Methodology so that companies and users can understand how our assessments are reached.

3. Three Separate Measures

Finauthority deliberately separates three different concepts:

Regulatory Status

A factual or analytical classification concerning a company’s licensing, authorization or regulatory position.

Finauthority Score

An independent editorial research score reflecting regulatory strength, transparency, available protections, documented concerns and other criteria described in this Methodology.

User Rating

An aggregate representation of eligible ratings submitted by Finauthority users.

These three measures are not interchangeable.

A high User Rating cannot override an official regulatory warning.

A company cannot obtain a stronger Regulatory Status because it has positive reviews.

A Finauthority Score is not calculated simply by averaging user ratings.

4. The Finauthority Score Is Not an Investment Recommendation

The Finauthority Score is a research and transparency assessment.

It is not:

investment advice;
financial advice;
a prediction of future performance;
a guarantee of solvency;
a guarantee of successful withdrawals;
a guarantee of regulatory compliance;
a guarantee that a company will not fail;
a recommendation to deposit funds; or
a substitute for independent due diligence.

Users should consider the score together with the underlying research.

5. More Than 15 Years of Professional Experience

Finauthority’s research framework is informed by more than 15 years of professional experience accumulated within our team.

This experience supports our ability to:

evaluate financial-company disclosures;
analyze regulatory claims;
identify inconsistencies between legal entities and brands;
interpret company documentation;
examine user evidence;
recognize potentially misleading representations;
compare information across multiple sources; and
understand patterns commonly encountered in financial-company research.

Professional experience informs our judgment but does not replace evidence.

Material conclusions must still be supported by appropriate sources.

6. Research Begins With Identity

Before assessing a financial company, we first attempt to establish what exactly we are researching.

A brand name alone is often insufficient.

We may seek to identify:

trading name;
legal entity;
corporate owner;
website domain;
operating company;
country of incorporation;
registered address;
regulatory entity;
associated brands;
historical names; and
relevant corporate relationships.

This step is particularly important because the same financial brand may be operated by different legal entities in different jurisdictions.

7. Brand and Legal Entity Are Not the Same Thing

A financial brand may not itself be a legal entity.

For example:

Example Brand

may be operated by:

Example Financial Services Ltd

which may belong to:

Example Holdings Group

and the relevant financial license may belong to only one of those entities.

Finauthority therefore attempts to distinguish clearly between:

brand;
legal entity;
parent company;
subsidiary;
regulated entity;
website operator; and
affiliated companies.

8. Domain Verification

The website domain associated with a financial company is an important part of our verification process.

Where relevant, we may examine:

the domain displayed in regulatory records;
domains listed in company documents;
contact email domains;
redirects;
historical domains;
website legal notices;
terms and conditions;
regulator warnings; and
discrepancies between the claimed company and the website being used.

A genuine license number belonging to a genuine financial company does not automatically prove that an unrelated website is operated by that company.

9. Clone-Firm Risk

Fraudulent operators may copy information belonging to legitimate companies.

This can include:

company names;
license numbers;
registration numbers;
addresses;
logos;
employee names;
regulator information;
telephone numbers; or
other corporate details.

For this reason, Finauthority does not consider a license number alone sufficient evidence of legitimacy.

Where appropriate, we compare the brand and website against the contact and domain information available from authoritative sources.

10. Primary Sources

Finauthority gives the greatest evidentiary weight to authoritative primary sources.

These may include:

financial regulators;
securities commissions;
central banks;
supervisory authorities;
government registers;
official corporate databases;
court records;
regulator warning lists;
enforcement decisions;
official licensing databases; and
other competent public authorities.

Whenever reasonably possible, regulatory conclusions are based on primary official information.

11. Company Sources

Company-generated information can also be relevant.

Examples include:

terms and conditions;
client agreements;
privacy policies;
legal notices;
regulatory disclosures;
risk warnings;
company websites;
investor documents;
corporate announcements;
official company correspondence; and
documents submitted directly to Finauthority.

Such information represents evidence of what the company states.

It does not automatically prove that every statement is correct.

12. Independent Documentary Sources

Other useful sources may include:

transaction documentation;
archived webpages;
contractual records;
correspondence;
payment records;
corporate ownership records;
historical company documents;
domain records where relevant and lawfully available; and
other independently verifiable materials.

These sources may help establish relationships or facts not immediately apparent from a company’s current website.

13. Secondary Sources

Reliable secondary sources may provide useful context.

These may include:

established financial publications;
reputable news organizations;
specialist publications;
credible industry databases;
academic or professional research; and
recognized consumer-protection resources.

Secondary sources generally carry less weight than authoritative primary records when establishing regulatory status.

14. Forums and Social Media

Forums, social networks and open online discussions may provide research leads.

However, anonymous online claims generally carry limited evidentiary weight on their own.

Such information may prompt further research but should not normally be treated as sufficient proof of serious allegations without corroboration.

15. Source Hierarchy

As a general framework, Finauthority evaluates sources in approximately the following order:

Tier 1 — Official Regulatory and Government Sources

Highest evidentiary weight.

Tier 2 — Official Legal and Corporate Records

Strong evidentiary weight.

Tier 3 — Primary Company Documentation

Useful but subject to independent verification where material.

Tier 4 — Independently Verifiable Documentary Evidence

Evaluated according to authenticity, relevance and context.

Tier 5 — Reliable Secondary Sources

Used primarily for context and corroboration.

Tier 6 — User Reports and Open-Source Discussion

Useful as leads and supporting information but requiring appropriate verification.

Source quality may vary within each category.

16. Conflicting Sources

Where sources conflict, Finauthority considers factors including:

authority of the source;
publication date;
directness of the evidence;
relevance to the exact legal entity;
whether the source is primary or secondary;
whether information has been superseded; and
whether independent corroboration exists.

An older company webpage, for example, should not ordinarily override a newer official regulatory record.

17. Regulatory Verification

When regulation is relevant to the service offered, Finauthority may verify:

name of regulator;
legal entity;
license or reference number;
authorization status;
license category;
authorized activities;
jurisdiction;
current status;
relevant trading names;
approved domains where available;
restrictions;
historic regulatory status; and
official warnings.

Regulatory verification concerns the exact entity and relevant activity, not merely the existence of a similar company name.

18. Regulatory Status Classifications

Depending on available evidence, Finauthority may display regulatory classifications such as:

Regulated

Relevant authorization has been independently identified and reasonably matched to the entity and activity.

Licensed

A relevant financial license has been identified, subject to its scope and jurisdiction.

Registered

The company holds a registration relevant to its activity, but that registration may not provide the same level of supervision as full financial authorization.

Unregulated

No relevant authorization has been identified for an activity where regulatory status is material.

License Not Verified

A license or authorization is claimed but could not be independently confirmed to our satisfaction.

Regulatory Warning

A competent authority has published a relevant warning concerning the company, brand, website or associated entity.

Potential Clone / Identity Concern

Evidence indicates a potentially significant mismatch between the brand or website and the regulated entity whose credentials are being presented.

Regulatory Status Under Review

Available information is conflicting, incomplete or undergoing additional verification.

19. “Regulated” Is Not a Universal Status

Financial authorization is jurisdiction-specific and activity-specific.

A company regulated for one service in one jurisdiction may not necessarily be authorized to provide another service elsewhere.

Finauthority therefore considers:

what activity is regulated;
which legal entity holds authorization;
where the authorization applies; and
whether the website or brand can reasonably be connected to that entity.

20. Registration Versus Full Authorization

Finauthority distinguishes between different forms of regulatory recognition.

For example:

corporate registration;
tax registration;
anti-money-laundering registration;
financial-services registration;
full financial authorization; and
prudential supervision

may represent very different levels of oversight.

We seek to describe the relevant status accurately rather than presenting every form of registration as equivalent to comprehensive regulation.

21. When Regulation Is Not Required

Not every financial or financial-technology activity requires the same form of regulatory authorization.

Finauthority does not automatically penalize a company for lacking a license that is not legally required for its actual business activity.

Where appropriate, our researchers consider:

nature of the service;
customer location;
jurisdiction;
legal framework;
products offered; and
whether regulated activities appear to be performed.

22. Offshore Regulation

An offshore authorization is not automatically treated as fraudulent or invalid.

However, the strength of customer protections may vary significantly between jurisdictions.

Relevant considerations may include:

supervisory framework;
disclosure requirements;
client-money rules;
complaint mechanisms;
compensation arrangements;
enforcement capacity;
transparency; and
cross-border accessibility.

Our methodology evaluates the practical regulatory context rather than treating all licenses as identical.

23. Official Regulatory Warnings

Official regulatory warnings receive substantial weight in our methodology.

Where a competent authority warns that a company or website:

is unauthorized;
is potentially fraudulent;
is impersonating another company;
is a clone firm;
is making misleading regulatory claims; or
presents another material regulatory concern,

the warning should be prominently displayed and reflected in the Finauthority assessment.

24. Warnings Must Match the Correct Entity

A regulatory warning is not automatically attributed to every business with a similar name.

Before associating a warning with a profile, we may compare:

exact brand name;
domain;
legal entity;
address;
contact information;
regulator description; and
other identifying information.

This helps reduce false associations between unrelated companies.

25. Corporate Transparency

We assess how clearly a company identifies itself.

Factors may include availability and consistency of:

legal entity;
registered address;
operating address;
corporate ownership;
responsible company;
contact information;
registration details;
regulatory information;
website operator; and
contractual counterparty.

Greater transparency generally contributes positively to the Finauthority Score.

26. Ownership Transparency

Where reasonably relevant and publicly available, Finauthority may examine:

parent company;
controlling entities;
directors;
significant shareholders;
beneficial ownership information;
group structure; and
material corporate relationships.

Lack of publicly available ownership information is considered in context.

Not every jurisdiction requires the same disclosure level.

27. Legal Documentation

We may examine whether the website provides appropriate legal documentation.

Depending on the type of company, this may include:

terms and conditions;
client agreement;
privacy policy;
risk disclosure;
fee schedule;
complaints procedure;
withdrawal policy;
conflicts policy;
execution policy;
custody information;
regulatory disclosure; and
other material legal documents.

28. Consistency of Legal Documents

Providing legal documents is not sufficient if those documents contradict one another.

Finauthority may check whether:

the same legal entity appears consistently;
addresses match;
regulator details match;
domains match;
governing law is identifiable;
contact information is consistent; and
documents appear relevant to the actual website.

Material inconsistencies may negatively affect the assessment.

29. Service Transparency

We may assess whether users can reasonably understand what service is being offered.

Relevant considerations may include:

product description;
fees;
commissions;
spreads;
withdrawal conditions;
deposit conditions;
account requirements;
eligibility restrictions;
relevant risks;
contractual counterparty; and
customer-support information.

Hidden or materially unclear conditions may reduce the transparency assessment.

30. Financial Claims

Claims such as:

guaranteed returns;
guaranteed profits;
risk-free investment;
unusually high fixed returns;
guaranteed recovery of losses; or
misleading statements concerning regulatory protection

may receive additional scrutiny.

The effect on the assessment depends on context, evidence and applicable regulation.

31. Client Protection

Where relevant, Finauthority may consider publicly verifiable information concerning protections such as:

segregation of client funds;
safeguarding arrangements;
custody structure;
negative balance protection;
compensation schemes;
complaints mechanisms;
ombudsman access;
investor protection arrangements; and
withdrawal procedures.

We do not assume that a protection applies merely because it is commonly available in a particular jurisdiction.

32. Regulatory and Enforcement History

Where relevant and lawfully available, we may consider:

regulator warnings;
enforcement actions;
license restrictions;
license suspensions;
significant fines;
court decisions;
insolvency proceedings;
authorization withdrawals; and
other material regulatory history.

Historical information is evaluated in context, including its age, seriousness and current relevance.

33. Complaints and User Experiences

User experiences can provide information not visible through regulator or corporate records.

However, Finauthority does not assume that every online complaint is accurate.

We analyze complaint information according to factors such as:

authenticity;
specificity;
supporting evidence;
recurrence;
seriousness;
similarity of independent reports;
company response;
age of complaint; and
relevance to current operations.

34. Review Quality Before Review Quantity

Ten unsupported reviews do not automatically carry more evidentiary weight than one well-documented case.

Likewise, hundreds of generic positive ratings should not automatically override significant documented concerns.

Finauthority therefore evaluates the quality and credibility of review information, not only volume.

35. Evidence-Based Reviews

Serious factual allegations may require supporting evidence before they contribute materially to Finauthority’s research.

Evidence may include:

transaction records;
withdrawal requests;
payment confirmations;
account notices;
company correspondence;
contracts;
screenshots;
complaint documentation;
regulator correspondence; or
other relevant records.

Documents are assessed according to context and do not automatically prove every claim.

36. Review Verification Labels

Reviews may carry labels such as:

User Review

A review submitted by a Platform user.

Identity Verified

Finauthority completed an appropriate identity-verification step relating to the reviewer.

Evidence Submitted

The reviewer supplied supporting material.

Evidence Reviewed

Our team examined supporting material relevant to the review.

Company Response

The company responded publicly or through the relevant Platform process.

Review Under Investigation

The review is undergoing additional examination.

These labels describe process.

They do not constitute judicial or regulatory findings.

37. Manipulated Reviews

Reviews suspected of manipulation may be excluded from rating calculations or publication.

Potential indicators include:

duplicate accounts;
automated submissions;
coordinated posting;
identical text;
undisclosed employee reviews;
paid reviews;
competitor attacks;
unusual bursts of activity;
fabricated documentation; and
other signals inconsistent with genuine user experience.

No single technical signal should automatically establish manipulation without appropriate consideration.

38. User Rating

Where displayed, the User Rating reflects ratings submitted through the Finauthority review system that remain eligible under our moderation standards.

The User Rating is separate from the Finauthority Score.

Reviews removed or excluded for violations such as manipulation, spam or fabrication do not contribute to the aggregate rating.

The number of eligible reviews should be displayed where practical so that users can understand the size of the sample.

39. Evidence Does Not Buy a Better Star Rating

Supporting evidence helps us evaluate authenticity and factual claims.

It does not automatically convert a user’s opinion into a five-star or one-star rating.

Reviewers remain responsible for the rating they assign to their own experience.

Finauthority may exclude manipulated or ineligible ratings but does not normally rewrite the user’s rating merely because evidence was submitted.

40. Minimum Evidence for an Editorial Score

Finauthority may maintain a company profile without immediately assigning a Finauthority Score.

Where there is insufficient information to conduct a meaningful assessment, the profile may display:

Not Rated

Research in Progress

rather than an artificially precise score.

Before assigning a full Finauthority Score, we generally seek sufficient information to assess:

company identity;
relevant regulatory position;
basic legal disclosures;
relevant website information; and
material known concerns.

41. Finauthority Score

Where sufficient information exists, Finauthority may calculate an editorial score on a scale of:

0 to 100

A higher score generally reflects a stronger combination of:

verified regulatory position;
corporate transparency;
clear disclosures;
appropriate customer protections;
absence of serious unresolved concerns;
credible operational information; and
responsible engagement with legitimate complaints.

A lower score generally reflects more significant concerns, uncertainty or weaknesses.

42. Score Components

The standard Finauthority Score uses seven principal assessment categories.

1. Regulation and Authorization — up to 30 points

2. Corporate Identity and Ownership Transparency — up to 15 points

3. Legal and Operational Transparency — up to 15 points

4. Client Protection and Business Practices — up to 15 points

5. Regulatory, Enforcement and Warning History — up to 10 points

6. User Feedback and Evidence — up to 10 points

7. Responsiveness and Corrections — up to 5 points

Maximum Standard Score: 100 points

43. Regulation and Authorization — 30 Points

This is generally the most heavily weighted component where financial authorization is relevant.

We may consider:

whether relevant authorization exists;
reliability of regulator;
exact legal entity;
authorization scope;
license status;
jurisdiction;
permitted services;
domain match;
regulatory restrictions;
ability to verify the record; and
accuracy of regulatory claims made by the company.

The absence of a license that is not legally required does not automatically result in a zero score.

Where a regulatory criterion genuinely does not apply, scoring may be normalized as described below.

44. Corporate Identity and Ownership Transparency — 15 Points

Factors may include:

identifiable legal entity;
company registration;
ownership transparency;
corporate structure;
consistency of addresses;
director or management information where appropriate;
relationship between brand and operator;
historical names; and
ability to verify the business independently.

Companies that conceal or materially misrepresent their operating entity may receive significantly fewer points.

45. Legal and Operational Transparency — 15 Points

Factors may include:

terms and conditions;
privacy information;
client agreement;
fee transparency;
risk disclosure;
complaints information;
withdrawal rules;
contact information;
governing law;
legal-document consistency; and
clarity about the service being offered.

Materially contradictory or missing legal information may reduce this component.

46. Client Protection and Business Practices — 15 Points

Where applicable, this category may consider:

client-money protections;
safeguarding;
custody arrangements;
complaint mechanisms;
compensation schemes;
withdrawal transparency;
negative balance protection;
dispute mechanisms;
disclosure of conflicts;
risk information; and
other safeguards relevant to the service.

The criterion is adapted to the type of financial company being evaluated.

47. Regulatory, Enforcement and Warning History — 10 Points

We consider relevant public information concerning:

regulatory warnings;
sanctions;
restrictions;
enforcement actions;
license suspensions;
significant fines;
official clone warnings;
material unresolved regulatory concerns; and
relevant historical conduct.

Absence of an identified warning does not guarantee that no issue exists.

48. User Feedback and Evidence — 10 Points

This component considers more than average star ratings.

We may evaluate:

volume of eligible reviews;
consistency of complaints;
seriousness of allegations;
evidence supporting material complaints;
review authenticity;
positive experiences;
repeated unresolved patterns;
company responses; and
age and relevance of the feedback.

User feedback cannot override an authoritative regulatory fact.

49. Responsiveness and Corrections — 5 Points

We may consider whether a company:

responds constructively to legitimate complaints;
corrects inaccurate company information;
provides requested regulatory documentation;
addresses material inconsistencies;
responds to substantiated reviews;
maintains updated public information; and
cooperates with reasonable verification requests.

A company is not required to agree with Finauthority to receive credit for responsiveness.

The relevant question is whether it engages transparently and constructively.

50. Not-Applicable Criteria

Some criteria may not apply to every category of financial company.

For example, a particular type of technology provider may not be legally required to hold the same authorization as an investment firm.

Where a material scoring component genuinely does not apply, Finauthority may normalize the score across applicable criteria rather than penalize the company for an irrelevant requirement.

We do not intentionally award or remove points for obligations that do not apply to the company’s actual activity.

51. Normalization

Where criteria are legitimately marked not applicable, the remaining applicable components may be proportionally normalized to a 100-point scale.

This prevents businesses in different financial categories from being unfairly penalized merely because regulatory frameworks differ.

Normalization does not remove material risk indicators.

Critical regulatory concerns may still affect or limit the final score.

52. Critical Risk Overrides

Certain findings are too significant to be treated as ordinary point deductions.

Finauthority may therefore apply a score ceiling where critical evidence exists.

This prevents a company with a serious regulatory problem from obtaining a misleadingly high overall score through strengths in unrelated categories.

53. Unauthorized Regulated Activity

Where reliable evidence indicates that a company is offering an activity requiring authorization but no relevant authorization can be identified, the overall Finauthority Score may be limited to a maximum of:

39 / 100

until the regulatory position is satisfactorily clarified.

54. Official Unauthorized-Firm Warning

Where a competent financial authority has issued an active and relevant warning that the company or website is unauthorized for the activity concerned, the score may be limited to:

29 / 100

provided that Finauthority has reasonably matched the warning to the correct brand, domain or entity.

55. Official Clone-Firm Warning

Where a competent authority identifies the relevant brand or website as a clone or impersonation of a legitimate regulated company, the profile may receive a prominent Critical Regulatory Warning.

The score may be limited to:

20 / 100

while the warning remains materially applicable.

56. Materially False Regulatory Claims

Where strong evidence establishes that a company is materially misrepresenting:

a license;
a regulator;
another company’s authorization;
regulatory affiliation; or
official approval,

the score may be limited to:

39 / 100

or lower depending on the seriousness of the evidence.

57. Unidentified Legal Operator

Where Finauthority cannot reasonably identify the legal entity responsible for a financial service after appropriate research, the score may be limited to:

49 / 100

until the operator is sufficiently clarified.

For services involving significant customer funds, inability to identify the contractual counterparty is treated as a material transparency concern.

58. Score Ceilings Are Not Criminal Findings

A score ceiling is an editorial risk-control mechanism.

It does not mean that Finauthority has determined that a company committed a criminal offense.

It means that the identified issue is sufficiently material that allowing unrelated positive factors to produce a high overall score would be misleading.

59. Score Bands

Where an overall Finauthority Score is displayed, the following general interpretation may be used:

85–100 — Strong Profile

Research identifies a strong combination of regulatory clarity, transparency and relevant protections, with no material unresolved concerns identified at the time of review.

70–84 — Generally Positive Profile

Most major criteria are satisfactory, although some limitations or areas requiring additional due diligence may remain.

55–69 — Mixed Profile

The company has identifiable strengths but also material areas of uncertainty, weaker protections or concerns requiring closer examination.

40–54 — Elevated Concerns

Research identifies significant weaknesses, uncertainty, limited transparency or other material concerns.

0–39 — Significant Concerns

Research identifies serious regulatory, transparency, warning-related or evidence-based concerns that users should examine carefully.

These categories are research classifications, not recommendations to invest or avoid investing.

60. No “Guaranteed Safe” Category

Finauthority does not assign a 100% Safe, Guaranteed, Risk-Free or equivalent status to financial companies.

Even strongly regulated financial institutions may:

fail;
become insolvent;
suffer cyber incidents;
receive sanctions;
experience operational problems; or
generate legitimate customer disputes.

No rating removes financial risk.

61. Research Confidence

Where useful, Finauthority may separately indicate the confidence level of an assessment.

Possible classifications include:

High Research Confidence

Multiple recent authoritative sources are available and key information can be independently verified.

Moderate Research Confidence

Important information is available but some relevant details remain incomplete or dependent on secondary evidence.

Limited Research Confidence

Material information is unavailable, conflicting, outdated or difficult to verify.

Research Confidence describes the quality and completeness of available information, not the quality of the company itself.

62. Score and Confidence Are Different

A company may have:

High Research Confidence + Low Score

if strong evidence clearly identifies serious concerns.

Another company may have:

Limited Research Confidence + Moderate Score

because available information is incomplete.

Users should therefore consider both the assessment and the quality of underlying evidence.

63. Category-Specific Assessment

Different types of financial companies require different analytical emphasis.

Finauthority may adapt applicable criteria while retaining the same core principles.

64. Brokers and Trading Platforms