How to Verify Public Metrics
A broker publishing execution metrics is a positive signal, but published data alone is not proof. This guide provides a structured 5-step framework for evaluating whether a broker's metrics are genuine, complete, and meaningful.
Step 1: Check the Source
Where does the data come from?
What to Check
- Is the data live (API-driven) or a static image/PDF?
- Is there a publication date and update frequency?
- Is the data source described (internal logs, third-party audit, regulator report)?
Green Flags
- Live dashboard with real-time or daily updates
- Data sourced from server-side execution logs
- Third-party audit or verification mentioned
Red Flags
- Screenshots or images with no source
- No publication or update date
- Vague descriptions like "industry-leading execution"
Step 2: Evaluate Completeness
Are all relevant metrics included, or just the favorable ones?
What to Check
- Does the dashboard include slippage (both positive AND negative)?
- Is fill ratio / rejection rate reported?
- Are execution speed percentiles shown (not just averages)?
- Is the data segmented by instrument and time period?
Green Flags
- Multi-dimensional: speed, slippage, fills, rejections all present
- Both favorable and unfavorable metrics shown
- Percentile data (P50, P95, P99) not just averages
Red Flags
- Only execution speed published (hiding slippage/rejection data)
- Only spread data published (many brokers can show tight spreads while B-booking)
- No historical trend data
Step 3: Test for Symmetry
Is slippage distributed fairly between positive and negative?
What to Check
- What percentage of slippage is positive vs negative?
- Is the average magnitude of positive slippage similar to negative?
- Is the distribution shown visually (histogram) or just as summary stats?
Green Flags
- Roughly 40-60% split between positive and negative slippage
- Similar magnitude in both directions
- Visual distribution chart available
Red Flags
- Over 80% of slippage is negative
- Positive slippage not reported at all
- Average negative slippage is much larger than average positive
Step 4: Check Temporal Consistency
Are the metrics consistent over time, or just a cherry-picked snapshot?
What to Check
- Is historical data available (at least 3-6 months)?
- Do metrics change during volatile periods (news events)?
- Is there month-over-month comparison?
Green Flags
- Multiple months or quarters of data available
- Metrics during volatile periods included (not removed)
- Consistent methodology over time
Red Flags
- Only a single month or week of data
- Suspicious gaps during known volatile periods
- Methodology changes without explanation
Step 5: Cross-Reference
Can the published data be verified through independent sources?
What to Check
- Does the broker provide data in machine-readable format (API, CSV)?
- Are regulatory filings (RTS 27/28, FCA reports) consistent with published data?
- Do independent review sites or forums corroborate the execution quality?
- Can you test execution quality with a small live account?
Green Flags
- API access to execution data
- Regulatory filings match published claims
- Consistent feedback from independent trading communities
Red Flags
- Data only available as screenshots
- Regulatory filings contradict marketing claims
- Significant disconnect between published metrics and user reports
The Bottom Line
Transparency is not binary -- it exists on a spectrum from no disclosure to fully audited, real-time dashboards. The most trustworthy brokers welcome scrutiny, provide machine-readable data, and include both favorable and unfavorable metrics. Use this 5-step framework every time you evaluate a broker's transparency claims.