How we rate online trading brokers
Every TIC broker review is built on the same evaluation system: 49 data points across 6 weighted categories, a minimum of 14 days of live account testing, and at least 25 real trades placed with our own money. No broker pays to be reviewed, and no score is ever edited after an affiliate conversation.
On this page
- The TIC Score explained
- Score bands and verdicts
- The 6 evaluation categories
- 1. Regulation & safety of funds
- 2. Real trading costs
- 3. Deposits & withdrawals
- 4. Platform & product range
- 5. Customer support
- 6. Suitability for African traders
- How we test every broker
- Review frequency & updates
- Editorial independence
- Who applies this methodology
- Methodology FAQ
The TIC Score explained
The TIC Score is a single number on a 0 to 5 scale, published alongside every full broker review. Each broker we rate starts from zero. Scores are built up metric by metric against a published rubric — never downgraded subjectively after testing, and never adjusted for commercial reasons.
A broker’s final TIC Score is the weighted average of its six category scores, which are themselves weighted averages of the underlying metric scores. The formula is fixed, the inputs are documented, and the evidence is published in every review.
Worked example: how a final TIC Score is calculated
For a hypothetical broker scoring above average on regulation and costs, but weaker on African payments:
This broker would be published as 4.3 / 5.0 — Recommended, with the 3.2 score on African suitability flagged in the verdict and the full sub-scores shown in the review’s data panel.
Score bands and verdicts
Every TIC Score falls into one of five verdict bands. The band determines the headline verdict we publish and whether the broker appears in our “best brokers” lists.
Any broker scoring below 2.0 on regulation & safety is automatically capped at a final TIC Score of 2.5 regardless of how it performs on other categories. Unregulated brokers cannot be “Recommended” under this methodology.
The 6 evaluation categories
Every broker is evaluated across the same six categories, using the same 49 underlying data points. The categories are weighted to reflect what actually decides whether an African retail trader keeps their money or loses it.
| Category | Weight | Data points | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation & safety of funds | 25% | 10 | Licensing tier, fund segregation, compensation scheme, enforcement history. |
| Real trading costs | 20% | 10 | Live spreads on 12 benchmark instruments, commissions, swap fees, inactivity charges. |
| Deposits & withdrawals | 20% | 8 | Real deposit and withdrawal tests, processing time, fees, KYC friction. |
| Platform & product range | 15% | 10 | Trading platforms, mobile app quality, available instruments, account types. |
| Customer support | 10% | 6 | Response time, resolution time, agent accuracy across live chat, email, WhatsApp. |
| Suitability for African traders | 10% | 5 | Local payment rails, minimum deposit, country access, language support. |
| Total | 100% | 49 |
The weights are reviewed every 12 months. The current weights (version 3.0) reflect our findings from the 2025 African retail broker testing cycle: regulation and deposit/withdrawal reliability were the two single strongest predictors of whether readers kept their funds, so both are weighted heavily. Platform design and product range — heavily emphasised in broker marketing — matter far less once the fundamentals are in place.
1. Regulation & safety of funds Weight 25%
The single strongest predictor of whether your deposit comes back. We verify the exact legal entity holding African client accounts, because a broker’s group licence in London often does not extend to its offshore entity that actually handles your money.
10 data pointsRegulator tier — the foundation score
Every broker’s regulation score starts from the tier of its strongest retail licence that accepts African clients. We use four tiers with fixed point values so the score is reproducible and cannot be argued.
| Tier | Regulators | Points | Why this tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | FCA (UK), CySEC (Cyprus/EU), ASIC (Australia), NFA (US), BaFin (Germany), AMF (France), FINMA (Switzerland), MAS (Singapore), JFSA (Japan) | 5.0 | Strict capital requirements, segregated client funds, active enforcement, retail compensation schemes (e.g. FCA up to £85,000; CySEC up to €20,000). |
| Tier 2 | FSCA (South Africa), CMA (Kenya), CMA (Uganda), SCA (UAE), DFSA (Dubai), FMA (New Zealand), IIROC (Canada) | 3.5 | Meaningful retail protection, active enforcement, lower compensation caps. FSCA is the strongest African retail framework. |
| Tier 3 | FSC Mauritius, FSA Seychelles, VFSC Vanuatu, BVIFSC, Bahamas SCB | 2.0 | Offshore licences with lower capital, conduct, and reporting requirements than Tier 1/2. Limited recourse if the broker fails. |
| Tier 4 | St. Vincent & the Grenadines registration, Comoros, Saint Lucia, unregulated | 0.5 | No retail forex licence at all. St. Vincent explicitly does not regulate forex. Brokers with only this registration are effectively unregulated for African clients. |
Brokers holding multiple licences are scored on the highest tier that accepts African retail clients — not the broker group’s best licence. Many brokers advertise an FCA or CySEC licence but route African account registrations to an offshore entity. We check the client agreement you sign, not the marketing page you read.
The 10 regulation data points
Tier of the licence on the legal entity that actually holds African client accounts.
- 5.0 — Tier 1 licence accepts African clients directly.
- 3.5 — Tier 2 licence accepts African clients directly.
- 2.0 — Only Tier 3 accepts African clients (Tier 1/2 entity excludes them).
- 0.5 — Only Tier 4 / unregulated entity accepts African clients.
- 5.0 — 3 or more Tier 1/2 licences.
- 4.0 — 2 Tier 1/2 licences.
- 3.0 — 1 Tier 1/2 licence.
- 1.0 — Tier 3 or offshore only.
- 5.0 — Segregation in Tier 1 bank, publicly disclosed, auditor-verified.
- 3.5 — Segregation disclosed but not audited, or in Tier 2 bank.
- 1.5 — Unclear or only stated in marketing.
- 0 — Not disclosed.
- 5.0 — Available to all retail clients, including African accounts.
- 3.0 — Available only on EU/UK accounts; not extended to African clients.
- 0 — Not offered.
- 5.0 — FSCS (£85,000) or ICF (€20,000) applies to the entity serving African clients.
- 3.0 — Partial scheme (e.g. insurance bond) applies.
- 0 — No compensation available.
- 5.0 — More than 10 years of continuous operation under the same brand.
- 4.0 — 5 to 10 years.
- 2.5 — 2 to 5 years.
- 1.0 — Less than 2 years.
- 5.0 — No regulator actions, warnings, or fines in the last 5 years.
- 3.5 — One minor fine or procedural action, resolved.
- 2.0 — Multiple fines, conduct warnings, or client complaints upheld.
- 0 — Regulator warnings, licence suspension, or ongoing serious action.
Owner disclosure, management team, registered office, audited accounts published.
- 5.0 — Listed group or full disclosure, audited accounts public.
- 3.5 — Named ownership, some public filings.
- 2.0 — Nominee directors, unclear ownership.
- 0 — Hidden or misleading ownership structure.
Warnings issued by FSCA, CMA Kenya, CMSA Tanzania, or similar African regulators.
- 5.0 — No African regulator warnings.
- 2.0 — One historical warning, resolved.
- 0 — Active warning or named on a regulator’s unauthorised-broker list.
- 5.0 — Clear, prominent risk warning on every marketing page with retail loss statistics.
- 3.5 — Risk warning present but buried or generic.
- 1.5 — Risk warning only in the footer or client agreement.
- 0 — No meaningful risk disclosure.
2. Real trading costs Weight 20%
The actual cost of trading, measured on the broker’s live platform with real money — not the “typical” numbers in the broker’s marketing. Over 100 trades, cost differences matter more than any deposit bonus.
10 data pointsBenchmark instrument set
We record spreads on the same 12 instruments for every broker, 3 times per day, over 14 consecutive days (252 total observations per instrument per broker). The 12 benchmarks: EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY, AUD/USD, USD/ZAR, USD/KES, XAUUSD, WTI, US30, SPX500, BTCUSD, ETHUSD.
The 10 trading cost data points
- 5.0 — Under 0.6 pips average.
- 4.0 — 0.6 to 1.0 pips.
- 3.0 — 1.0 to 1.5 pips.
- 2.0 — 1.5 to 2.0 pips.
- 1.0 — Over 2.0 pips.
Average spread across the four majors, scored on the same band as 2.1.
- 5.0 — Tight, stable spreads with reliable quotes during East/South African trading hours.
- 3.0 — Available but with wide or inconsistent spreads.
- 1.0 — Quoted sporadically or only during London hours.
- 0 — Not offered.
- 5.0 — Under 20 cents average.
- 4.0 — 20 to 30 cents.
- 3.0 — 30 to 50 cents.
- 1.5 — Over 50 cents.
Round-turn commission charged on Raw / Zero / Pro accounts, per 100,000 units traded.
- 5.0 — Under $6 round-turn.
- 4.0 — $6 to $8.
- 3.0 — $8 to $12.
- 1.5 — Over $12.
Measured on EUR/USD long and short, AUD/JPY long and short, and XAUUSD long and short. Scored against the median broker swap rate in our rating pool.
- 5.0 — No inactivity fee.
- 3.5 — Inactivity fee begins after 12+ months of inactivity.
- 2.0 — Inactivity fee begins within 3 to 12 months.
- 1.0 — Monthly inactivity fee or fee within 90 days.
Applied when depositing in local currency (KES, TZS, ZAR, NGN) into a USD-base account, and when withdrawing back.
- 5.0 — Under 1% total round-trip conversion cost.
- 3.5 — 1% to 2.5%.
- 2.0 — 2.5% to 5%.
- 1.0 — Over 5% or not disclosed.
3. Deposits & withdrawals Weight 20%
The single most important operational test for African retail traders, because “deposits work, withdrawals don’t” is the defining characteristic of broker scams. We complete at least 3 real deposits and 2 real withdrawals on every broker.
8 data points- 5.0 — Under $10.
- 4.0 — $10 to $50.
- 3.0 — $50 to $200.
- 1.5 — Over $200.
Count of functional deposit methods available to African clients: M-Pesa, Airtel Money, Tigo Pesa, local bank transfer, Visa/Mastercard, crypto (USDT/USDC), Skrill/Neteller, wire.
- 5.0 — 6 or more methods functional.
- 4.0 — 4 to 5 methods.
- 2.5 — 2 to 3 methods.
- 1.0 — 1 method only.
Median observed time from request to available balance across our 3 test deposits.
- 5.0 — Under 15 minutes (instant methods).
- 4.0 — 15 minutes to 2 hours.
- 3.0 — 2 to 24 hours.
- 1.5 — Over 24 hours.
- 5.0 — Zero broker-side deposit fee on the cheapest method.
- 3.5 — Fee under 1.5% on the cheapest method.
- 2.0 — Fee 1.5% to 3%.
- 1.0 — Over 3% or variable / undisclosed.
Median observed time from withdrawal request to funds received, across our 2 test withdrawals.
- 5.0 — Same day (under 24 hours).
- 4.0 — 1 to 2 business days.
- 3.0 — 3 to 5 business days.
- 1.5 — Over 5 business days.
- 0 — Withdrawal refused, reversed, or still pending at review publication.
Any additional documentation requested only at the withdrawal stage (not at deposit).
- 5.0 — No additional documentation required beyond initial KYC.
- 3.5 — Additional proof of address or selfie required, processed within 48 hours.
- 2.0 — Multiple rounds of documentation requested.
- 0 — Documentation loop that prevents withdrawal completion.
We compile a rolling sample of at least 100 reported withdrawals per rated broker from our reader feedback channel, excluding any case with failed KYC at deposit.
- 5.0 — 97%+ successful on first attempt.
- 4.0 — 90–97%.
- 3.0 — 80–90%.
- 1.5 — 60–80%.
- 0 — Below 60%.
4. Platform & product range Weight 15%
What you actually trade on. We test every trading platform the broker offers on both desktop and Android from a Tanzanian 4G connection, and count the instruments relevant to African retail trading strategies.
10 data pointsMT4, MT5, cTrader, and any proprietary desktop platform. Each platform is tested for stability, chart quality, and order-entry precision.
We evaluate 18 mobile app features: biometric login, 2FA, price alerts, watchlists, economic calendar, news feed, deposit/withdraw in-app, chart indicators, multi-order, partial close, pending orders, one-click trading, account switching, multilingual support, offline mode, push notifications, customer support in-app, and app stability under low-bandwidth.
- 5.0 — 15 or more of 18 features present and functional.
- 4.0 — 12 to 14 features.
- 3.0 — 9 to 11 features.
- 1.5 — Fewer than 9.
Combined Google Play and App Store rating, weighted by review volume. Minimum 500 reviews required.
- 5.0 — 50+ pairs including all major African pairs (ZAR, KES, NGN, EGP).
- 3.5 — 30 to 49 pairs.
- 2.0 — Fewer than 30 pairs.
Count and depth of indices, commodities, shares, and crypto offered.
Availability of Standard, Cent, Pro / Raw Spread, Zero / ECN, and Islamic (swap-free) accounts.
We verify that the swap-free account is genuinely swap-free for all relevant instruments, not a rebranded standard account with hidden overnight fees.
- 5.0 — Unlimited demo, full platform parity, no expiry, no personal data required.
- 4.0 — Demo available, full platform parity, 30+ day expiry.
- 2.5 — Demo with limited features or short expiry.
- 1.0 — No demo or demo requires full KYC.
5. Customer support Weight 10%
We send 10 test enquiries per broker through live chat, email, and WhatsApp at 3 different times of day (East Africa morning, European afternoon, West African evening), asking a mix of easy and hard questions.
6 data points- 5.0 — Under 60 seconds.
- 4.0 — 1 to 3 minutes.
- 3.0 — 3 to 10 minutes.
- 1.5 — Over 10 minutes.
WhatsApp support with an average response time under 2 hours is a meaningful African-market signal.
Accuracy score on standard questions: spread on a named pair, current leverage on our account type, exact fund segregation bank, inactivity fee timing, and withdrawal KYC requirement.
- 5.0 — 5/5 correct answers.
- 4.0 — 4/5.
- 3.0 — 3/5.
- 1.5 — 2 or fewer correct.
English, French, Swahili, Arabic, Portuguese. Each African-relevant language materially extends the usable audience.
- 5.0 — 24/5 or 24/7 live support.
- 3.5 — Live support covers East African trading hours (06:00–22:00 EAT).
- 2.0 — Live support during London hours only.
6. Suitability for African traders Weight 10%
The category the global broker-rating sites systematically under-measure. What matters to an African retail trader is not whether the broker supports SEPA — it is whether M-Pesa actually works, whether the minimum deposit is reachable on a $10 test, and whether the account is accepted in their country.
5 data pointsFunctional integration of M-Pesa, Airtel Money, Tigo Pesa, and MTN Mobile Money. Tested with live deposits from Tanzanian, Kenyan, and Ugandan accounts.
- 5.0 — 3 or more mobile-money rails supported, all tested working.
- 4.0 — 2 rails supported.
- 2.5 — 1 rail supported.
- 1.0 — No mobile-money support (card / bank / crypto only).
Account registration accepted from at least 12 African countries, including Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, and Egypt.
Availability of ZAR, KES, NGN, EGP, and GHS base account currencies, avoiding double conversion costs.
App and web platform usability on a throttled 3G connection, tested from a Tanzanian carrier SIM.
Does the broker publish Africa-specific education, local market commentary, and localised tax or regulatory guidance — or does it serve a single generic global template?
How we test every broker
No TIC Score is published without a minimum of 14 calendar days of live account testing with real money. The testing process is identical for every broker — no exceptions — and the evidence is logged in a public data panel on each review.
Day 0 — Account opening and KYC
We open a live account from a Tanzanian IP using a real Tanzanian (or Kenyan, where Tanzanian is unavailable) ID and proof of address. We record exact time-to-approval and any unusual documentation requests.
Day 1 — First deposit (M-Pesa or card)
Deposit 1 of 3. Typical size $20–$50 on the smallest-minimum account the broker offers. We log exact fees, processing time, and confirmation flow.
Days 1–14 — Spread and execution observation
Three times per day — 08:00 EAT, 14:00 EAT, 20:00 EAT — we record spreads on the 12 benchmark instruments. Over 14 days, this produces 504 data points per broker before any trading costs are calculated.
Days 3–13 — Real trade execution (25 trades minimum)
A minimum of 25 real trades are placed across majors, XAUUSD, a local pair (USD/ZAR or USD/KES), and an index. We measure slippage versus quoted price, fill speed, and platform stability.
Days 5–10 — Support benchmark
10 support enquiries: 5 easy (“What is my current leverage?”) and 5 hard (“Which bank does your CySEC entity use for fund segregation?”). Sent across live chat, email, and WhatsApp.
Day 10 — First withdrawal test (small)
Withdrawal of $10–$20 to the same rail used for the deposit. We log exact processing time, any additional KYC, and whether the funds arrive at the correct amount.
Day 14 — Final withdrawal and account closure test
Full withdrawal of remaining balance plus an account-closure request. If either step fails or loops through KYC, the broker is automatically capped at a 3.5 category score for deposits & withdrawals.
Days 14–21 — Evidence review and peer check
The analyst’s scoring sheet is reviewed by a second TIC editor against the raw evidence (screenshots, transaction records, chat transcripts). Disagreements are resolved against the rubric, not by discussion.
Review frequency & updates
Broker markets change. A CySEC fine, a new offshore entity, a sudden withdrawal delay — any of these can move a broker’s score materially within weeks. We have three update tracks.
Quarterly full re-review
Every rated broker is fully re-tested once per calendar quarter (up to 4 full reviews per broker per year). The quarterly review repeats the 14-day testing cycle, updates all 49 data points, and republishes the review with a “Last tested” date.
Event-driven urgent update (within 48 hours)
Any of the following triggers a same-week review update, with a visible change log on the review page:
- Regulator warning, fine, licence suspension, or enforcement action against the broker or its group.
- Material withdrawal delay or refusal reported by 3 or more readers within 7 days.
- Change to the legal entity that holds African client accounts.
- Material change to leverage, spreads, or account types affecting African clients.
- Change of ownership or corporate restructure.
Reader-reported issue check
Every review has a “Report an issue” link. Reports are triaged within 5 business days. Patterns across 3 or more independent reports trigger a mini-investigation; confirmed issues result in an immediate change log entry and, where warranted, a score update before the next quarterly re-review.
Editorial independence
TIC earns affiliate commissions on some of the brokers we rate positively. This is publicly disclosed on every review and every “best broker” list. We accept no paid placements, no sponsored reviews, and no commercial content — and none of our affiliate partners see the TIC Score, the verdict, or the published review before publication.
The specific commercial rules that bind this methodology:
- No broker can pay to be reviewed, to appear on a “best of” list, or to have a rating changed.
- No TIC Score is ever edited after an affiliate conversation. If a score moves, the underlying data must have moved first, and the change log must show why.
- Affiliate commission rates do not affect placement on “best broker” lists. Lists are ranked strictly by TIC Score.
- Any broker that attempts to condition an affiliate deal on editorial treatment is permanently excluded from our affiliate programme and flagged in the next review.
- Our TIC Scores and full methodology are publicly auditable. Readers can verify every score against the rubric on this page.
For the full editorial standards that govern how our content is written, fact-checked, and corrected, see our editorial guidelines. For specific affiliate commercial disclosures, see our affiliate disclosure.
Who applies this methodology
Broker ratings are produced by named TIC analysts and editors and peer-reviewed before publication. Every review shows a visible byline with the analyst’s name, the editor who reviewed it, and the date of last testing.
- Daniel Amaro — Senior Broker Analyst. Applies categories 1 (Regulation) and 2 (Trading costs) on most reviews.
- Claire Mercer — Editor and Fact-Checker. Final editorial approval on every review; verifies evidence against the rubric.
- Joseph Otieno — Markets & Regulation. Applies category 1 on African regulator detail and category 6 on country accessibility.
- Amina Kimaro — Payments & Mobile Money. Applies category 3 (Deposits & withdrawals) and category 6.1 (Mobile money support).
Frequently asked questions about our methodology
Why is regulation weighted 25% and not 50%?
Regulation is the strongest single predictor of whether your deposit is protected if the broker fails — but a Tier 1 licence alone does not help if withdrawals take 15 business days or if spreads on the pairs you trade are 3× the industry median. Weighting regulation at 25% reflects it as the most important single input, while letting the other five categories combine to outweigh it when the broker is clearly mis-serving African clients on costs, payments, or support.
Do you accept paid placements or sponsored reviews?
No. TIC accepts no paid placements, no sponsored reviews, and no commercial content. We earn affiliate commissions on some of the brokers we rate positively; this is publicly disclosed and has no influence on TIC Scores, verdicts, or ranking on “best broker” lists.
How do I know the testing actually happened?
Every full broker review includes a dated data panel showing the specific values recorded during testing — average spreads per instrument, exact deposit and withdrawal times in hours, support response times in minutes. Each review also shows the analyst byline, the editor who peer-reviewed it, and the “Last tested” date. Where anomalies are found, we publish screenshots or transcripts alongside the relevant score.
Why is your EUR/USD spread different from the broker’s advertised spread?
Broker-advertised spreads are almost always the broker’s “typical” spread — an average measured during low-volatility London hours, on a demo account, or on the broker’s flagship regulated entity. Our spreads are measured on a live, funded account held by an African client, across full trading hours including the Asian session and news releases, across 14 consecutive days. The two numbers often differ by 30–100%.
Can a broker contest its TIC Score?
Brokers can contest the underlying data on factual grounds — for example, if we have misidentified the licensing entity, misquoted a spread, or failed to notice a change in fee schedule. Where the broker provides verifiable evidence that our data is wrong, we correct it and republish the score. Brokers cannot contest the rubric, the weights, or a score calculated correctly against the published data.
How often does this methodology change?
We review the methodology once per year. Weight changes, new data points, and tier reclassifications are versioned and dated (current version: 3.0, April 2026). Any change is applied to all subsequent reviews — we do not rescore historical reviews retroactively unless the change corrects an error. Version history is available on request to the editorial team.
Why do you include an offshore tier at all, instead of rejecting offshore brokers outright?
Because excluding them would be dishonest about how African retail trading actually works. Most brokers popular with African clients route those clients through an offshore entity — often Mauritius, Seychelles, or Vanuatu — while keeping their FCA or CySEC entity for European clients. Telling African traders to “only use Tier 1 brokers” often means telling them to use brokers that do not accept them. Our methodology scores the actual legal entity the African reader will hold an account with, and transparently penalises offshore tiers — but does not pretend they can be ignored.
Where can I report an issue or a scoring error?
Every TIC review has a “Report an issue” link. For general methodology feedback, email the editorial team through our contact page. Confirmed scoring errors are corrected and change-logged within 5 business days.