Finauthority helps readers examine financial companies through independent research, regulatory information and user feedback. Our approach starts with identifying the business and checking the evidence behind its claims, rather than relying on promotional language or a single rating.
This page is a practical overview of our published Research and Rating Methodology. The full policy contains the detailed criteria, scoring framework and limitations. Finauthority is an independent research and review platform, not a regulator or an official licensing authority.
Three measures with different purposes
Regulatory Status
This classification addresses the company’s licensing, authorization or regulatory position. It depends on the relevant entity, activity, jurisdiction and evidence. Customer popularity cannot change whether an authorization has been identified.
Finauthority Score
This is an editorial research assessment, separate from customer star ratings. The published framework considers regulation, company identity, transparency, customer protections, documented concerns, user evidence and responsiveness to corrections. Read the underlying findings alongside the score; it is not an investment recommendation or a prediction of future performance.
User Rating
This reflects eligible ratings submitted through our review system. It describes user feedback rather than official regulatory status. A favorable User Rating does not cancel an authority’s warning, and the Finauthority Score is not simply an average of user ratings.
Research begins with the legal entity
A recognizable brand may be operated by different companies in different countries. Our methodology therefore distinguishes the trading name, website operator, contractual entity and any parent or affiliated businesses.
The relevant questions include which entity holds a claimed license, what activities it covers and whether the website can reasonably be connected to that entity. A copied license number or a similarly named company is not enough to establish that connection.
How sources are assessed
Official regulatory and government information carries the greatest evidentiary weight. Legal and corporate records, company disclosures and independently verifiable documents can help establish identity and context. Reliable secondary reporting may support the research, while user reports and public discussion can identify issues requiring further examination.
Company statements are evidence of what a business claims, not automatic confirmation that the claim is correct. When sources conflict, relevance to the exact entity, authority, dates and corroboration matter. Official warnings also need to be matched carefully to the correct brand or website.
Understanding the regulatory labels
The published methodology describes eight classifications:
- Regulated: relevant authorization has been identified and reasonably matched to the entity and activity.
- Licensed: a relevant financial license has been identified, subject to its scope and jurisdiction.
- Registered: a relevant registration exists, but may involve different oversight from full authorization.
- Unregulated: relevant authorization has not been identified where regulatory status is material.
- License Not Verified: a claimed license or authorization has not been independently confirmed to our satisfaction.
- Regulatory Warning: a competent authority has published a relevant warning.
- Potential Clone / Identity Concern: evidence indicates a significant possible mismatch between a brand or website and the licensed entity it references.
- Regulatory Status Under Review: information is incomplete, conflicting or undergoing further verification.
These labels require context. Not every activity requires the same license. An unverified claim is not automatically false, and an unregulated company is not automatically fraudulent.
Reviews, evidence and research confidence
User experiences may highlight issues that official records do not capture. Our User Review and Evidence Policy distinguishes individual opinion from factual allegations and sets out how supporting material and review eligibility are considered.
Evidence quality matters alongside the assessment itself. Limited public information may prevent a meaningful score; the methodology allows profiles to remain Not Rated or Research in Progress. Research confidence and the score answer different questions: strong evidence can support a low assessment, while incomplete information can limit confidence.
Independence, limitations and corrections
Under the published methodology, payments do not purchase regulatory verification, additional methodology points or removal of legitimate concerns. Findings must follow the evidence.
Research cannot uncover every fact, and public information can be incomplete or change after review. A score does not guarantee solvency, successful withdrawals or protection from loss. Check current official records before making a financial commitment.
If information is inaccurate or outdated, our Corrections, Complaints & Right of Reply Policy explains the available route. Read the sources, dates, uncertainty and company response where provided, then use the full methodology for the detailed framework behind the overview.