Editorial & Ratings Methodology

Our goal is simple: to be the most accurate, useful and genuinely independent guide to prediction markets. This page explains how we research, review and rate the platforms we cover, and how we keep our analysis honest.

Independence

No platform can pay for a better review, a higher score, or a higher position in our rankings and tables. We fund this free resource partly through affiliate commissions (explained in our affiliate disclosure), but those commercial relationships are kept strictly separate from our editorial judgement. If our highest-rated platform paid the lowest commission, it would still be our highest-rated platform.

How we review a platform

We assess each platform against the factors that actually matter to someone trading event contracts:

• Regulation & safety — licensing, oversight and how funds are handled
• Costs & fees — what it really costs to trade and to move money
• Markets & liquidity — range of markets and how easily you can get filled
• Funding & withdrawals — methods, speed and friction
• Experience — the website and app, ease of use, and customer support

Our rating scale

Ratings run from 1 to 5. Broadly: 4.5+ is an outstanding, top-tier platform; 4.0–4.4 is a strong choice; 3.7–3.9 is solid and capable; and lower scores indicate a platform that is newer, narrower or still proving itself. Scores can change as platforms evolve.

Accuracy and sources

We base our content on platform documentation, regulatory sources and hands-on assessment, and we frame fast-moving figures (valuations, volumes, fees) as estimates current at the time of writing. Because the sector — particularly its regulation — changes quickly, we date our pages and review them regularly.

Corrections

If you believe something on the site is wrong or out of date, please tell us at [email protected]. We take corrections seriously and will update pages promptly where needed.