The rule everything else follows from
A page exists to answer a reader's question with facts the reader can check. Every figure on this site should be traceable to a primary source or to a measurement we made ourselves, and every score should be reproducible from published criteria. Where we cannot meet that standard, we say so on the page rather than round the gap away.
What we publish
Ratings of forex brokers, crypto exchanges, prop trading firms, payment services, VPS providers, wallets and currency exchangers; reviews of individual providers and copy-trading strategies; comparison guides and explainers; analysis built on data we collect ourselves, such as copy-trading follower outcomes and exchange-rate history; and calculators and monitors that work in the browser.
We do not publish news on demand, sponsored articles, or content supplied by a provider. We do not publish personalised recommendations: nothing here is advice, as the risk disclaimer sets out.
Where the facts come from
Sources are used in this order, and a lower tier never overrides a higher one:
- Regulators' registers and enforcement notices, and the provider's own legal documents: terms, fee schedules, account specifications, help centre pages.
- Public data interfaces and our own readings of them: copy-trading platform statistics, exchange order books and candles, exchanger rate feeds, latency measured from a reader's browser.
- Verified first-hand use: an account opened, a transfer made, a swap executed.
Marketing pages, press releases and third-party review aggregators are not sources for a score. When a provider's page can only be read through a search index because it refuses automated readers, the article says so. Numbers that go stale are dated on the page.
How ratings are scored
Each vertical has its own weighted criteria, published in full on the methodology page, and every score is the weighted sum of per-criterion marks on a 1 to 5 scale. Every rating entry carries a "Last verified" date that is set by hand when the entry was actually re-checked. A provider that fails a hard requirement stays in the table marked as disqualified, with the sourced reason shown, rather than being quietly removed.
Ratings are meant to be current. Reviews of individual strategies and dated analyses are snapshots: they state the date their figures were read and are not rewritten to look fresh.
Independence
Some providers rated here pay a referral commission when a reader signs up through our link; how we make money explains which ones and how. That relationship does not affect a score, an entry's position, whether a provider is listed, or whether it is disqualified. A provider with no partner programme is rated on exactly the same criteria, and the methodology page shows current cases where such a provider outranks one that pays us.
Providers do not see pages before publication and cannot edit them. We do not sell positions in a rating, and accurate information is not removed on request. If a provider disputes a fact, we re-check it against the primary source and correct it if we were wrong; the corrections policy describes that process.
How the work is done
Research, scoring and writing are done by the SmartRevenueHub team. We use software, including AI tools, to collect data, build charts and prepare drafts. A member of the team checks every published figure against its source before publication and is responsible for what appears on the page. Articles are bylined "SmartRevenueHub Team" unless an individual author is named.
Dates you can rely on
Every article shows when it was published. The "Updated" date moves only when the reader-visible content changes, never when a page is touched for administrative reasons, and the same date feeds the sitemap. What triggers a refresh, and how corrections are handled, is described in the corrections policy.
Contact
Questions about this policy, or a fact you believe is wrong, go through the contact form.