About the Editorial Team
An independent editorial resource reviewing Plus500 for Australian readers, with no affiliation to the broker and no financial services of our own.
Partner mobile appsEditorial Mandate
We take on one obligation, and it shapes everything else on this site: to describe Plus500 as accurately as we can for readers in Australia, and to be clear about the point at which description stops. A review can tell you what a platform's published terms say, how its fee schedule is structured, what its product set looks like on paper, and how its documents compare with what a reader is likely to expect. It cannot tell you whether the broker is right for you, whether trading suits your circumstances, or what will happen to your money. Those are judgements no third party can make on your behalf, and we do not pretend otherwise.
We also accept that a review is a snapshot. Terms change, fees are revised, and the regulatory position for Australian users can shift between the date we check a page and the date you read it. Where we know something is time-sensitive we say so, and we point you back to the broker's own documents as the authoritative version. Our text is a guide to what to look at, not a substitute for reading it yourself.
Finally, a review describes a business, not a relationship. We have no access to any account, no visibility into any individual's dealings, and no way to intervene in a dispute. If you need a decision made about your own situation, the review will not make it for you.
What We Will Not Do
We will not open an account for you, accept a deposit, place an order, hold funds, or act on your behalf in any way. This site does not provide financial services, does not provide financial product advice, and does not offer accounts of any kind. Nothing published here is a recommendation to trade, to open an account, or to send money anywhere.
We will not sell a verdict. No broker, platform or intermediary has paid for a favourable assessment, reviewed a draft before publication, or been given a right of approval over our conclusions. Where we criticise something, the criticism stands on the published facts we cite, not on a commercial arrangement.
We will not present ourselves as something we are not. We are not the broker, we are not affiliated with the broker, and we are not regulated, licensed or endorsed by any authority. We do not invent credentials, registration details or contact routes to look more official than we are. We will not publish figures we cannot trace to a source, and we will not soften a finding because it is awkward.
How the Site Is Funded
The site pays for itself through commercial arrangements that are kept separate from editorial judgement. Those arrangements may include advertising placements or referral links, and where a link generates a payment to us we identify it as such at the point where it appears. The payment buys placement, not opinion. It does not buy a rating, a ranking, a favourable sentence, or the removal of an unfavourable one.
Editorial decisions are made without reference to what any arrangement is worth. If a commercial relationship would create a conflict on a particular page, we either disclose it plainly or we do not publish the page. Readers should be able to see how the site is paid for and still trust what they read, and that is the standard we hold ourselves to.
The absence of a commercial arrangement is equally important. We do not condition coverage on payment, and a broker that pays us nothing receives the same treatment as one that does.
Sources and Corrections
Our facts come from primary material: the broker's published terms and conditions, fee and product documentation, and the regulatory disclosures that apply to Australian users. Where we rely on secondary reporting we say so. We date our checks, keep a record of what we looked at, and re-verify time-sensitive details rather than carrying old text forward.
Every factual claim should be traceable to something a reader could open and read. If we cannot show where a number came from, we do not publish the number. Where the source material is ambiguous, we describe the ambiguity rather than resolving it in the broker's favour or against it.
If you believe something here is wrong, outdated or unfairly characterised, challenge it. Use the contact form on this site, tell us which page and which statement, and point us to the source you think we have missed. We will check it against the primary material. Where we got it wrong, we correct the text and note that a correction has been made. Where we stand by the original after checking, we will explain our reasoning. We do not remove accurate material because someone would prefer it gone, and we do not leave inaccurate material up because correcting it is inconvenient.
