About the editorial team
An independent editorial resource that reviews Capital.com for readers in Australia, with no affiliation to the broker and no financial services of its own.
Sponsor's licencesWhere the facts come from
Start with a single line on a page: the stated minimum deposit for an Australian client. Before that line is published, an editor opens the broker's own product disclosure statement, checks the figure against the live account-opening screen, and notes the date on which both were seen. If the two disagree, the page says so. That is the routine behind every factual claim on this site.
Most of what you read here is drawn from primary documents: the broker's terms and conditions, its product disclosure statement and target market determination, its fee schedule, and the public registers maintained by Australian regulators. Where a claim rests on testing rather than on a document, the method is described on the page itself, so a reader can see what was done and decide whether it means anything for them.
Checking is a second pass, not a formality. A writer drafts, a second editor verifies each figure and each quoted term against the source, and anything that cannot be traced back to a document or a described test is cut. Corrections are logged and the page carries the date of its last review, so you can judge how current it is.
The limits of a review
A review can tell you what a broker's documents say, what its platform does when someone opens an account, and how its fee schedule compares with the terms it publishes elsewhere. It cannot tell you whether the broker will suit you. Suitability depends on your circumstances, your experience, your tolerance for risk and your reasons for trading, none of which an editorial team can see.
Nor can a review predict how a broker will behave in a future dispute, a market shock or a change of ownership. Terms change, and a page that was accurate on the day it was checked may be out of date by the time you read it. The dates on each page are there for that reason.
Finally, this site describes; it does not assess your personal situation and it does not recommend. A favourable write-up is not a signal to open an account, and a critical one is not a signal to close one. Those decisions belong to you and, where appropriate, to a licensed adviser who knows your circumstances.
Why this site exists
Australian readers looking at an offshore-facing broker face a particular problem: the marketing is polished, the documents are long, and the parts that matter are buried. This site exists to put those parts in one place, in plain English, for readers who want to understand what they are signing up to before they sign up to it.
We write for the curious and the cautious: the person comparing account types, the person checking whether a fee is standard, the person who wants to know what a product disclosure statement actually obliges the broker to do. We do not write for people looking for a tip, a signal or a shortcut.
The site is independent of the broker it reviews. It is not the broker, it is not owned by the broker, and it does not hold itself out as providing financial services, accounts, deposits or advice. It is an editorial resource, and it is run as one.
What the team will not do
The team will not accept payment in exchange for a verdict, a rating, a placement or a softened assessment. It will not publish a claim it cannot source. It will not present a broker's marketing language as its own finding, and it will not describe a product as suitable for a reader it has never met.
It will not invent details to fill a gap. Where a figure is unknown, the page says it is unknown; where a term is ambiguous, the page quotes it and says so. It will not offer contact routes it cannot stand behind, and it does not publish addresses, phone numbers or registration numbers it has not verified.
The team will not present itself as regulated, licensed or endorsed by any authority, because it is none of those things. And it will not bury a correction: when something on a page turns out to be wrong, the fix is made and the date is updated.
How the site pays for itself
The site is funded by advertising and by commercial arrangements that are disclosed on the pages where they apply. Those arrangements do not buy a verdict. An advertiser has no sight of a review before publication and no right to change it afterwards.
Where a link earns the site money, that is stated next to the link. Where a page carries no such arrangement, nothing is implied. The distinction matters, because a reader should be able to tell the difference between an editor's assessment and a commercial placement without having to guess.
The editorial team sets its own priorities. Commercial pressure does not decide which broker is reviewed, which questions are asked, or how a finding is worded. If that ever stops being true, the site will say so.
How often pages are revisited
Every review page carries the date it was last checked. Pages are revisited on a rolling schedule, and the schedule is driven by how much a page can change: fee schedules and account terms are checked more often than background sections that describe how a market works.
A page is also revisited whenever the broker changes a document, a fee or a term that the page relies on, and whenever a reader points out something that looks wrong. Readers can do that through the contact form on this site. Reports are read by the editorial team, not by the broker.
Revisiting does not mean rewriting. If nothing has changed, the page keeps its wording and gets a new date. If something has changed, the change is made and, where it is material, noted on the page so that a returning reader can see what moved.
