A trader can recognise a broker’s name, find several regulator badges on its website and still be missing a basic fact: which legal company would hold the account? For a comparison service, a brand-level list of licences does not answer that question.
Clarytrade’s September 2026 research brief reports a directory mapping of 74 legal-entity records across 20 selected broker brands, with multiple entities for 17 brands. These are counts from a selected mapping, not a representative industry survey. A multi-entity structure is not itself evidence of wrongdoing. It does, however, make the distinction between the brand and the contracting company important.
Start with the agreement
The first field to establish is the complete legal name on the application and account agreement. A licence held by one group company does not establish that another group company holds that authorisation. Nor does a group’s strongest regulatory credential, by itself, describe the protections available through every entity.
A useful comparison therefore separates the brand, legal company, regulator, licence identifier and permitted service. The reader should be able to follow the source to the relevant official register and check the firm’s current status and permissions. Those fields should not be collapsed into a single “regulated” badge.
Treat the country route as a separate question
A group can operate through several companies and offer different accounts to residents of different countries. The entity shown in general marketing material may not be the company named when a particular applicant reaches the agreement.
Country mapping should consequently state its evidence and limits. If the route is inferred from published terms, the interface should say so. If the available information is incomplete, it should show that uncertainty rather than assign a company with unwarranted confidence. A comparison’s suggested route is a starting point for research, not a guarantee that the broker will accept an application.
Keep the source and its date visible
A licence identifier without a matching legal name, relevant permission and source date is incomplete evidence. Recording the source URL and check date allows readers to distinguish a current source read from an older entry that still needs checking. It also gives researchers a clear way to correct the record when the evidence changes.
There is a separate identity risk: the FCA’s guidance on clone firms explains that scammers may copy genuine firms’ names and reference numbers. It recommends checking the firm, the relevant permission and the contact details through its official Firm Checker. A genuine number displayed on a website does not, on its own, authenticate that website.
Make the next check obvious
For a reader building a shortlist, the practical sequence is straightforward: identify the agreement’s company; find its official register entry; check the relevant service; confirm the country and account route; and compare official contact details. Keep a source and date alongside each step. Where the documents disagree, seek clarification before relying on the comparison.
The aim is a comparison that lets readers trace an account claim back to a company and its evidence. Clarytrade publishes its research brief and a country/entity checker to support that process.
Disclosure: Clarytrade earns affiliate commissions through some broker links. This article does not recommend a particular account. Leveraged forex and CFDs carry a high risk of loss.
Sources
FCA: clone firms and individuals
Clarytrade: September research brief, methodology and sources
