Who writes the IG Markets review, and how we work
A short account of the independent editorial team behind this site, how we check what we publish, and what we will never do with it.
Compare against the sponsorWhat happens when a spread changes overnight?
A reader wrote to us some time ago about a spread on one of the pairs he trades most. On our page, as it stood then, the figure was one thing. On his platform it was another. That message is the reason this page exists in the form it does. We went back to the published page, tested the same instrument at the same time of day, and found the reader was right to ask: the figure had moved, and our page had not.
That is the ordinary condition of reviewing a broker. Prices, spreads, fees and platform details change without notice, and a review that was accurate on the day it was written can drift out of date quietly. So we do not treat any page on this site as finished. Every review is revisited on a regular cycle, and sooner when something material changes or when a reader raises a specific point.
The pages are written and maintained by an independent editorial team. This site is not the broker, is not affiliated with the broker, and does not offer financial services, trading accounts, deposits or advice of any kind. We describe what we can observe and verify about a broker; we do not act as one.
How does the site pay for itself if verdicts are not for sale?
We keep the commercial side away from the editorial side. The site is funded by advertising and by referral arrangements that may pay us a fee when a reader opens an account through a link on this site. That is the whole of the funding model. No broker, and no other party, pays us for a favourable verdict, a particular score, or the removal of an inconvenient finding.
We accept that readers will view a site like this with some suspicion, and they are right to. The practical safeguard is that the funding never enters the scoring. A review is written and scored before anyone looks at whether a commercial arrangement exists, and the decision to keep a broker on the site is not taken on commercial grounds. If a broker's terms become bad for readers in Nigeria, we say so, whether or not a link on the page earns anything.
We also do not accept payment for a review to appear, for a ranking position, or for a change in wording. Where a commercial relationship exists, it does not buy a voice in what gets published.
Where do the facts come from, and how are they checked?
The facts in a review come from sources a reader could in principle check for themselves: the broker's own published terms and documents, the platform as it actually behaves when tested, and the regulator registers that apply. We read the client agreement, the fee schedule and the product documentation rather than relying on summaries.
Where a figure matters, we test it rather than copy it. Spreads are sampled on the platform, fees are compared against the published schedule, and platform behaviour is observed directly. Where we cannot verify something, we either leave it out or describe it as unverified, and we try to be explicit about which of the two it is.
Each page is reviewed by a second member of the team before it goes live, and again when it is revisited. We keep a record of what changed and why, because a review that shifts its verdict without explanation is not useful to anyone. Facts are checked against primary sources wherever a primary source exists; where only secondary material is available, we say so in the text.
How is the broker actually tested and scored?
Testing is done with a real account, funded by us, on the same platform a reader in Nigeria would use. We place trades, observe execution, note the spread under ordinary and stressed conditions, test deposits and withdrawals, and go through the account-opening process as a customer would. We do not rely on demonstration accounts or on the broker's own descriptions of its service.
Scoring follows a fixed set of categories that is applied in the same way to every broker we review: costs, execution, platform and tools, the account-opening and withdrawal experience, and the quality of the published terms. Each category carries a fixed weight, so a strong result in one area cannot hide a weak one elsewhere. The scores are comparative within our own framework; they are not a statement about what will happen to any individual trader.
A score is a summary of our findings, not a verdict on whether a reader should open an account. We try to give the reasons behind each score, so a reader who disagrees with the weighting can still use the underlying observations.
How can a reader challenge something published here?
If something on this site looks wrong, we want to hear it. The route is the contact form on this site. Describe the page, the claim you think is inaccurate, and, where you can, what you observed and when. A screenshot or a dated note is more useful than a general impression, and a specific correction is acted on faster than a broad complaint.
Every challenge is read by a member of the editorial team. If the point is right, we correct the page and, where the correction is material, note that it was made. If we think the published claim stands, we explain why, and we may ask for further detail. We do not delete findings because a broker or a reader dislikes them.
We cannot give advice on an individual position, an account problem or a dispute with the broker. Those are matters between the reader and the broker, and the contact form is not a route for them.
What will the team not do, and what can a review not tell you?
We will not accept payment for a verdict, a score or a ranking. We will not publish a claim we cannot support. We will not present ourselves as the broker, as an agent of the broker, or as a licensed or regulated entity, because we are none of those. We will not invent a figure, a date or a detail to fill a gap, and we will not remove a finding because it is unwelcome.
A review also has limits, and it is honest to name them. It describes the broker as we found it over the period we tested; it cannot tell you what the terms will be next month, how a particular instrument will behave, or whether a strategy will work. It cannot assess your circumstances, your tolerance for loss or your tax position. It is a record of observation, not a prediction and not advice.
What a review can do is give you a checked picture of costs, execution and terms, with the reasons shown, so that your own decision rests on something more solid than a claim on a marketing page.
