How FORECK.INFO Rates Brokers, Crypto Exchanges and Wallets
How FORECK.INFO rates forex brokers, cryptocurrency exchanges and crypto wallets on a common 1–5 scale. The core rules apply to every rating, while the criteria and weights reflect the risks and purpose of each category.
weights in each category total 100%
The same formula, rounding rules and evidence standards apply across all FORECK.INFO ratings.
An exchange is not rated as a broker, and a wallet is not rated on liquidity. Each category uses eight relevant criteria.
The editorial rating determines rank. User ratings and vote counts never change it automatically.
How the editorial rating is calculated
One calculation method with suitable criteria for each categoryEach criterion is scored from 1.0 to 5.0 in 0.1 increments. The final score combines those results according to their weight. The weights in every category total exactly 100%.
Rounding and ranking position
- the final score is calculated before any rounding;
- the site displays one decimal place: 4.24 → 4.2 and 4.25 → 4.3;
- the rating and individual review show the same score;
- when displayed scores are equal, the stronger precise result ranks higher.
What receives the score
- for a broker or exchange: a defined platform and serving legal entity;
- for a wallet: a specific product, model or clearly scoped ecosystem version;
- a materially different local entity or product version is rated separately;
- ties are resolved first by the category’s primary safety criterion.
Three separate rating models
One scale, with different criteria and weightsThis page combines the rules shared by every FORECK.INFO rating: the scale, weighting principle, evidence standards and update rules. The actual rating model is not universal: brokers, exchanges and wallets use different criteria and weights. User votes are excluded from every formula.
Cryptocurrency exchanges
Rated object: a defined exchange platform and the legal entity serving the relevant customer.
| Criterion | Weight | What we assess |
|---|---|---|
| Security and asset custody | 25% | Account and withdrawal controls, custody model, reserves together with liabilities, independent assurance, access controls, incident history and customer compensation. |
| Regulation and company transparency | 15% | Serving legal entity, ownership and group structure, licenses in official registers, terms of service, country restrictions, enforcement actions and material litigation. |
| Fees and terms transparency | 15% | Maker and taker fees for spot and derivatives, tiers and discounts, withdrawal charges, spreads and other terms that change the effective trading cost. |
| Liquidity and execution | 10% | Depth in major markets, comparable volume data, spreads, execution resilience and warning signs of artificial volume. |
| Products and market access | 10% | Spot, margin, derivatives, staking and other products, listing and delisting standards, risk disclosure, regional availability and material limits. |
| Platform, tools and usability | 10% | Website and mobile app, stability, interface, API, external-tool connections, order types and access to security settings. |
| Deposits and withdrawals | 10% | Crypto and fiat methods, P2P, timeframes, limits, fees, dispute rules, verification transparency and documented systemic delays. |
| Support and service quality | 5% | Channels, operating hours, languages, handling of complex cases, service-issue notices and resolution of recurring problems. |
Forex brokers
Rated object: a defined legal entity and the terms available to a customer in the relevant country.
| Criterion | Weight | What we assess |
|---|---|---|
| Regulation and client asset protection | 25% | Licence of the serving entity, client money segregation, compensation arrangements, negative balance protection and regulatory restrictions. |
| Execution and trading model | 15% | Execution policy, price source, conflicts of interest, slippage, requotes and rejections, margin call and stop-out terms, and verifiable execution resilience. |
| Costs and terms transparency | 15% | Typical—not only minimum—spreads, commissions, swaps, conversion, inactivity, withdrawal and other mandatory charges. |
| Platforms and trading tools | 10% | MT4/MT5 and proprietary terminals, web and mobile stability, order types, charting, external connections and risk-management tools. |
| Markets and account types | 10% | Instruments and contract specifications, Standard, ECN/Raw, cent, demo and swap-free accounts, minimum deposit, leverage and suitability for different use cases. |
| Account opening, funding and withdrawals | 10% | Registration and identity checks, payment methods, base currencies, timeframes, limits, fees and documented withdrawal problems. |
| Company transparency and risk history | 10% | Ownership and group structure, financial and legal transparency, enforcement, litigation and material status changes. |
| Support and education | 5% | Support channels, hours and languages, complaint routes, and the quality of help and educational content without rewarding marketing claims. |
Crypto wallets
Rated object: a defined app, hardware model or clearly identified product version.
| Criterion | Weight | What we assess |
|---|---|---|
| Security architecture and key control | 30% | Custodial or self-custody model, entropy used for key generation, key isolation and storage, transaction verification and signing, secure elements, supply chain and attack surface. |
| Backup and recovery | 15% | Seed phrase, passphrase, multisig or alternative recovery, procedural clarity, backup verification and resilience to device loss. |
| Transparency, audits and incidents | 15% | Source and firmware openness, reproducible builds, independent audits, bug-bounty program, vulnerability disclosure and remediation quality. |
| Privacy and data handling | 10% | Personal and technical data collected by the app, privacy controls, and clear separation of third-party identity checks from the core wallet. |
| Networks, assets and compatibility | 10% | Supported networks and asset types, address standards, hardware and software compatibility, and integration quality. |
| Usability and accessibility | 10% | Setup, address, network and amount verification, signing clarity, phishing and dangerous-action warnings, localization and exposure to user error. |
| Updates and product lifecycle | 5% | Update authenticity and signing, security-fix cadence, supported systems and devices, end-of-support policy and safe migration. |
| Cost, support and documentation | 5% | Device or service cost, disclosed fees from integrated providers, warranty, support channels and documentation quality. |
How 1–5 scores are assigned and interpreted
One principle for each criterion and the weighted resultWe first score the eight criteria for the relevant category, then calculate the weighted result. A high score requires more than the presence of a feature: it needs verified quality, transparent terms and no unresolved material weakness.
Sources and editorial verification
Every criterion needs a dated, verifiable basisFor every rated object, editors record the category, exact product or legal entity, eight criterion scores, sources, review date and a concise rationale for each score.
Record the category, brand, domain, legal entity, model or product version.
Check official terms, registers, security information and independent data.
Apply the criteria for the relevant category and recheck facts, weights and the result.
Show the same score in the category rating and the individual review.
Source priority
- regulatory registers, courts and government records;
- terms, fee schedules, privacy policies and legal pages;
- security information, independent audits and official service notices;
- comparable market data and security research;
- user reviews only as a lead for further verification.
Missing data and testing claims
If material information for a criterion cannot be verified, that criterion cannot score above 3.0/5. Missing information is never treated as positive evidence.
FORECK.INFO does not claim to have tested a live deposit, withdrawal, account or device unless that testing was completed and documented.
Incidents, restrictions and removal
A material risk must not disappear inside a high average| Event or condition | Methodology response |
|---|---|
| Critical information is not disclosed | The affected criterion is capped at 3.0/5 until verifiable evidence becomes available. |
| Unresolved problem involving assets, withdrawals, execution or keys | The affected criterion cannot exceed 2.0/5; a visible status is added and editors decide whether the object remains in the active rating. |
| Enforcement, license loss, material judgment or critical vulnerability | Only genuinely affected criteria are recalculated. The same fact is not penalized repeatedly without a separate basis. |
| Closure, insolvency or no safe way to use the product | The object is removed from the active rating and moved to an archived status page. |
| An incident has been resolved | Severity, scope, disclosure, compensation, remediation and subsequent stable operation are assessed. A score is not restored automatically merely because time has passed. |
| Separate entity, local platform or product model | Material differences require a separate review and editorial rating. |
Regional availability and language editions
Language alone does not create a new score for the same entityEnglish and Russian pages use the same editorial rating when they assess the same legal entity, product and version on the same date. A separate rating is required when the serving entity, regulation, terms, feature set or product model materially differs.
English edition
U.S. availability is checked explicitly, including the serving entity, regulatory status, product access and payment methods. Material restrictions in other target markets are disclosed when they affect the audience or the rated product.
How differences are presented
Regional information is concise and does not duplicate the full review. A local platform or entity receives a separate card and score only when the service itself differs materially.
User reviews, votes and editorial independence
Audience activity does not replace editorial assessmentUser rating
A user average may be shown separately with its own label, visible rating count and moderation rules. It never changes the editorial rating automatically.
Votes and polls
Vote count measures popularity or interest. It is not a quality score and does not determine a product’s position in the rating.
Where the editorial rating appears
One product has one consistent editorial ratingOn a category ranking
Readers see the editorial rating, ranking position, update date and a link to this methodology. The editorial rating—not vote count—determines position.
On an individual review
Readers see the same editorial rating, assessment date and scores for the eight criteria in the relevant category.
On this methodology page
Readers can review the formula, criteria, scale, source standards and reasons a score may change.
In user ratings
A user average and rating count, when available, are shown separately and are never mixed with the editorial rating.
When the editorial rating is reviewed
We publish the actual review date rather than claiming a “live” ratingEach rating and review displays the date of its last full assessment. An unscheduled recalculation follows an event that can materially change one or more criteria.
Recalculation triggers
- breach, vulnerability, asset loss or prolonged withdrawal suspension;
- new license, enforcement, judgment or change of serving entity;
- material change to fees, execution, features or payment methods;
- closure, end of support or a change in regional availability.
How information is updated
- new facts and sources are checked;
- the new result receives a separate verification pass;
- the rating and individual review are updated together;
- EN and RU are checked for the same product and assessment date.
Frequently asked questions about editorial ratings
Concise rules for edge casesWhy do the three ratings use different criteria?
The functions and risks differ. Liquidity matters to an exchange, execution and client asset protection matter to a broker, and key control and recovery matter to a wallet. The scale, formula, evidence standards and independence remain common.
Can a broker rating be compared with a wallet rating?
No. The editorial rating indicates an object’s standing within its category. Cross-category ratings are not used to determine rank.
Can the score in a rating differ from the score in its review?
No, when both refer to the same entity and assessment date. A separate score is valid for another legal entity, local platform, model or materially different product version.
Can English and Russian pages show different scores?
Not because of language. The score is the same for the same entity and date. It may differ only when the pages intentionally assess different regional entities or products.
Do reviews or affiliate links affect the editorial rating?
No. Reviews are leads for verification and may appear as a separate user rating. Commercial relationships are also excluded from the formula.
Does a high score mean there is no risk?
No. It is a dated comparative assessment, not a guarantee of fund safety, future availability or returns.
This methodology is informational. FORECK.INFO does not guarantee the safety of funds, availability of a product or stability of regulation. Check current terms and restrictions for your country before using a financial service.
or post as a guest
Be the first to comment.