Who writes this review of Capital.com for South African readers?
An independent editorial team explains how it works, how it pays for itself, and what its review can and cannot tell you.
Our partner's platformsWhat does a typical reader question look like before it reaches us?
A reader in Johannesburg opens a page about Capital.com, sees a note on spreads, and writes in to ask when that spread was last checked. That question is the reason this page exists. The answer is not a slogan about transparency; it is a record of when the figure was taken, what the market conditions were, and what a reader should do if the number no longer matches what they see on their own screen.
That pattern repeats across the site. Someone in Cape Town wants to know whether a funding note applies to their account type. Someone in Durban asks why a review mentions a fee that their statement does not show. We treat each of those as an editorial question first and a customer-service question second, because we are not the broker and cannot see any individual account.
This site is an independent editorial resource. It reviews Capital.com for readers in South Africa. It is not the broker, it is not affiliated with the broker, and it does not provide financial services, accounts, deposits or advice. The team behind it is small, and every published page is the product of that team rather than of the company being reviewed.
How is the site paid for if verdicts are not for sale?
The site pays for itself through the ordinary mechanics of an editorial website: display advertising and commercial arrangements that are kept separate from the review process. No broker, including the one reviewed here, is offered a better score, a softer sentence or a delayed correction in exchange for money. If a commercial relationship exists, it does not travel into the scoring notes, and it does not decide what a page says.
The practical test is simple. A verdict is written from the test record, and the test record is compiled before any commercial conversation is relevant. When a page is updated, the update follows the evidence rather than the revenue. Readers who want to check this can compare a page's stated test date with the notes it publishes about what was checked.
We do not sell placement in a ranking, we do not remove a criticism because someone asked, and we do not publish a verdict we cannot support from our own notes. That is the whole arrangement.
How can a reader challenge something published here?
Use the contact form on this site. Say which page you are reading, which sentence you think is wrong, and what you saw instead. A screenshot or a dated statement helps, but a clear description is enough to start. The message goes to the editorial team, not to the broker, and it is read as a correction request rather than as a complaint to be deflected.
If the point is checkable, we check it. If the page is wrong, we correct it and note what changed. If the page is right but unclear, we rewrite the sentence. If we disagree, we say why and point to the basis for the original wording. A challenge that cannot be resolved from public information is recorded as unresolved rather than quietly dropped.
We do not need you to be a customer of anyone, and we do not ask for account details. We cannot act on your behalf with the broker, cannot intervene in a dispute, and cannot recover money. What we can do is examine whether what we published still holds.
What can a review not tell you?
A review describes conditions at a point in time. Spreads move, fees change, product lists are added to and cut, and the experience on a mobile connection in one province can differ from the experience on a desktop in another. A page cannot promise that what you see today matches what we saw on the test date.
A review also cannot see your circumstances. It does not know your income, your debts, your experience or what you intend to do with an account. It cannot tell you whether a product suits you, and it cannot predict an outcome. Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to open an account or to trade.
What a review can do is describe what was tested, how it was tested, and where the limits of that testing lie. We publish the method and the date so that a reader can judge how much weight to give a sentence. A review is a record, not a guarantee.
How often are pages revisited, and what will the team not do?
Pages are revisited on a rolling schedule, with priority given to pages whose subject matter changes quickly, such as fees, funding and platform features. Each page carries the date of its last check. If a page is overdue, we would rather say so than let an old date stand as if it were current.
The broker is tested by opening an account in the ordinary way, using the platform as a reader would, recording what happens at each stage, and scoring against criteria published on the site. Scores are tied to those criteria rather than to impressions. Where a criterion cannot be tested, we say so and do not score it.
The team will not pretend to be the broker, will not accept instructions on anyone's account, will not publish a verdict it cannot support, and will not remove a criticism to make a page more comfortable. It will not claim a licence, an endorsement or a supervisory relationship it does not have. It will not invent a figure, a date or a detail to fill a gap. Where there is a gap, the page says there is a gap.
