Our Methodology

The Rock Trading's Methodology

We compare CFD brokers, crypto exchanges and prop firms using one standardised review process, so providers with very different business models can be ranked against each other fairly. A trader deciding between owning coins on an exchange, trading crypto CFDs with leverage, or taking a funded account is making one decision, and our scoring treats it as one decision.

Each of the six areas receives a score out of 10 against the criteria published on this page. The six scores are averaged evenly into an overall result out of 100, with no hidden weighting, and that result converts to the star rating and label shown in every review's score box.

Who Reviews and How We Verify

Reviews are researched and written by Justin Grossbard, Noam Korbl and David Levy, whose backgrounds span finance, banking and more than a decade of reviewing online trading providers. Every review carries its author's name and a public profile you can check.

Verification sits underneath every figure we publish. Licence numbers are confirmed on regulator registers such as ASIC and the FCA rather than taken from a provider's footer, trading rules and corporate entities are drawn from each provider's own legal documents, spreads and fees are checked against live pricing, and coin counts come from live instrument lists rather than marketing pages.

Published reviews are not left to age. Pricing, rules and entities are re-checked when providers change them, and both sub-scores and overall scores move when the facts do. The site earns a commission when you open an account through some links, and none of it touches the scoring, since no provider can pay to lift a score or remove a review. Our Disclaimer and Disclosure page carries the full detail.

How We Shortlist Crypto Providers

We review more crypto providers than we shortlist. To enter our rankings of the best crypto CFD brokers, crypto exchanges and crypto prop firms, a provider has to offer competitive crypto trading, hold a verifiable track record, and run platforms with the features traders actually use, such as Expert Advisor support. From there we break the experience down across six core areas.

1. Crypto Trading Fees

Crypto trading fees are every cost between you and a filled trade, not just the headline spread. The advertised number is where we start, and the score reflects what a funded, active account actually pays once commissions, funding costs and entry fees are counted.

Scores rise when pricing is published in full and matches what live pricing shows, across majors and smaller altcoins alike. Scores fall when real costs only surface in the fine print, when spreads widen unfairly during normal hours, or when an attractive headline rate hides charges elsewhere.

2. Cryptocurrency Markets

A provider is only as useful as the crypto markets you can actually reach through it. Coin count is the obvious measure, and it is not the only one, since quoting conventions, leverage, product types and liquidity decide whether a long list is worth anything in practice.

Higher scores go to broad, reliable access with real liquidity behind it. A 200-coin list earns nothing if orders sit unfilled during peak hours, and a nine-coin list at 1:1 leverage caps the score however strong the provider is elsewhere.

3. Trading Platforms and Tools

Platforms decide the daily experience of trading, so we score what it is like to chart, place and manage crypto trades on each provider, whichever software it runs. MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView integrations and proprietary builds are all held to the same standard.

Choice and stability drive the score, along with room to trade the way you prefer, manual, automated or copy. Points come off when automation needs a paid add-on, when one region is confined to a single platform, or when the mobile experience trails the desktop one.

4. Safety and Availability

Safety asks two things of a provider, whether your money and data are protected, and whether you can legitimately use the service from where you live. The evidence differs by provider type, so the checks do too.

History carries real weight here. Fines, hacks and payout disputes are checked along with how the provider responded, because remediation separates a bad quarter from a bad operator. Availability rounds out the score, since strong protection is worth little in a country the provider does not serve.

5. Funding and Withdrawals

Moving money in and out is where providers are most exposed, so this area scores the routes, the speed and the cost of getting paid. For prop firms the payout terms are the product, and they are scored accordingly.

Fast, cheap and predictable is the standard. Scores drop for long delays, high or hidden transfer charges, and payout rules that only become clear after you have qualified for one.

6. Risk and Trading Rules

Every provider sets conditions on how you trade, and this area scores how fair, clear and survivable those conditions are. Rules are not inherently bad, since some protect you, and the score reflects whether they give a disciplined trader a genuine chance.

Clarity and predictability earn points, as do protective features such as negative balance protection and static rather than trailing drawdowns. Harsh liquidations, confusing conditions and limits that quietly convert winning traders into breaches pull the score down.

Overall Scores

Each of the six areas is scored out of 10, and the six results are averaged evenly to form the overall score out of 100. Every area carries identical weight, so a provider cannot bury a serious weakness under one exceptional strength, and you get a balanced view of the whole offering.

The overall score converts to the star rating shown in every review by dividing by 20, rounded to one decimal place, and each score falls into one of five labelled bands.

The maths in practice, using invented numbers. A provider scoring 8 for fees, 7 for markets, 9 for platforms, 6 for safety, 8 for funding and 7 for rules totals 45 across six areas, which averages 7.5 and scales to 75 out of 100. Dividing by 20 gives 3.8 stars, and 75 sits in the GOOD band. Sub-scores move when providers change their pricing, rules or entities, so an overall score is a current reading rather than a permanent verdict.