How we test and review investment platforms
At This is Money, we're committed to improving our readers' financial lives. Part of that involves scouring the personal finance landscape for the best financial products, deals, and services.
Investing is a cornerstone of building your wealth over the long-term and for many savers investment platforms are the key to that, allowing them to buy and hold funds, shares, bonds and ETFs.
DIY investment platforms have surged in popularity in recent years. According to data from Boring Money, the number of non-advised customer accounts has more than doubled since the start of 2020, going from around 5.95million to more than 12million.
It's important each of these account holders gets the most from their investing platform – and if they're not, our aim is to provide all the information they need to move to a more suitable provider.
We're also dedicated to making sure new customers choose the right platform for their needs.
This is why we regularly review the DIY investing market, testing platforms and measuring their effectiveness.
We analyse each investment platform with different types of investor in mind, from the cost-conscious to those who want the best customer service.
What do we mean by DIY investing platform?
A DIY investing platform is a service that lets you choose your own investments and hold them in either a general investment account or a tax-efficient wrapper, such as a stocks and shares Isa or self-invested personal pension (Sipp).
As part of our review, we consider what investment accounts the platform offers.
For fairer and simpler comparisons, we make a distinction between traditional investment platforms and newer, often app-focused trading platforms.
We categorise these providers as traditional investment platforms for comparison:
AJ Bell
Bestinvest
Charles Stanley Direct
Fidelity
Hargreaves Lansdown
Interactive Investor
We categorise these providers as newer, more app-focused investment platforms for comparison:
eToro
Freetrade
Prosper
Trading 212
Our methodology when reviewing investment platforms
The main criteria we consider are:
fees
investment choice
how intuitive the platform is to use
customer service
How we review fees
High fees eat into investment returns, so we're keen to make sure our readers get value for money.
However, the cheapest platform won't always be the right one for you. It really depends on what you're looking for from an investment platform, and we take this into account in our reviews.
We primarily compare account fees to see which investment platforms offer the best value.
We work out annual account fees for a range of portfolio sizes, which helps you discover the ideal option for the value of your investments and your overall financial goals.
Finally, we review other fees through the lens of different investors – for example, someone who wants to invest in funds primarily should check whether the platform offers free fund dealing.
How we review investment choice
We consider the number of investments that each platform says it offers, plus how you can buy each type of investment. For example, platforms don't always allow you to buy bonds and gilts directly and don't always allow fractional investing in stocks and shares.
The traditional DIY investing platforms generally offer a similar range of investments, so we highlight any major differences between platforms in our review.
It's different with the newer investment platforms, which have some variation in the types of investment on offer.
When testing, we scrutinise the investment choice on offer and explain what you can and can't invest in as part of our review.
How easy is to use - how we test intuitiveness
Our reviewers test each platform on both desktop and mobile where possible. Keep in mind not all investment platforms will offer both options, and we'll state whether the platform is primarily app or browser-based in our review.
We test how straightforward it is to perform key tasks when investing including:
searching for investments
buying and selling investments
setting up regular investing
adding cash to an account
accessing research and other information that helps you invest
Our reviewers give their thoughts on these functions. But what's intuitive for one person won't always be intuitive for another, so you should consider your needs carefully before deciding which platform to choose.
For example, if you think you'll need more support when using the platform, you could choose a service that does well for customer service.
How we test customer service
We review the availability of customer support, for example:
what options you have for contacting customer service – usually phone, live chat and email
how many days of the week you can contact customer service
how straightforward it is to contact the team directly from your account
We also test getting in touch with customer support to see how well they respond to a particular problem. Our reviewers give their account of how this interaction went, which helps you decide whether you'd be comfortable with the level of service provided.
Our final assessment
Our final assessment of each investment platform explains who we think it's good for, for example a cost-conscious investor, or someone who doesn't mind paying a bit more to access the best customer support and investment research.
How our reviews inform our platform round-ups
Our testing and overall impression of each investment platform help us compile our regularly updated roundups, which allow you compare options and decide on the best one for you:
Who are our experts?
This is Money has been running since 1999 and has built a reputation as a trusted financial website that helps its readers make the best decisions for their money.
Our writers and reporters have years and in some cases decades of experience in covering financial products, including investment accounts, as well as investments themselves.
They use the platforms in their personal lives and regularly speak to industry experts, deepening their knowledge.
Importantly, their aim is to make money engaging, giving you clarity over what is often a complicated topic.
Meet our team
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rental fraud: the Facebook and Gumtree scam targeting desperate tenants
You're desperately hunting for somewhere to live and scouring rental sites. The odds are stacked against you. Rents are high everywhere – in London tenants are paying almost £1,000 for a shoe cupboard with a bed – and living rooms have gone from a regular commodity to a luxury. But matters are made worse by scammers. The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more. Young people now account for three-quarters of rental fraud, according to data from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB). Last year alone almost £9m was lost across about 5,000 reported cases. Recently, the BBC reported how a family had lost £2,000 after responding to a scam advert on the listings website Gumtree – the criminals had even shown them round the property before taking the money. Most scams take place through websites where individuals can advertise directly, and at no cost, rather than the big property websites. And, as would-be tenants turn to social media to look for rooms, so do scammers posing as individual tenants or landlords to trap unsuspecting victims. Some, such as Spareroom, offer users advice on how to spot a scam. There are variations, but a common version involves someone posing as a landlord and posting on dedicated Facebook rental groups, or Gumtree, offering a cheap place to rent. Sometimes they can be studio flats, other times they'll advertise a room in a two-, three-, sometimes four-bed flat. Once you message them with interest, they will typically put you in touch with the current 'tenant' through a mobile number. The tenant will explain more details about the property, sometimes even accompanied by a video of a flat. However, when you ask to view the property they'll be strangely unavailable – suddenly a parent has died, they're abroad, or they're just very busy. They will ask you to pay the deposit and often put pressure on you to act quickly. Do not pay any deposit upfront without seeing a property, no matter how desperate you are to find a home. Make sure you go to see any property before you commit to renting. Gumtree advises: 'Always ask to see proof of ownership, or the landlord's right to let, and ensure a tenancy agreement is in place before paying deposits or holding fees.' Stand your ground; if something seems fishy, it probably is. On social media, or listing websites, check when the landlord's profile was created. How long have they been active? Do they seem to be advertising multiple properties with similar messages? What comes up when you search their name? If a landlord is claiming to be part of the NRLA, you can check whether their accreditation is legitimate here. Report fraudulent accounts to Facebook and Gumtree.
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I'm an EV expert and I think Labour's new Electric Car Grant is an expensive mess: GINNY BUCKLEY blasts £650m-backed scheme
As chief executive of dedicated electric car website and a long-time advocate of electric vehicles, you'd be forgiven for thinking I've been celebrating this week's news that Labour is bringing back grants for EVs. The government press release that landed in my inbox on Monday proudly trumpeted discounts of up to £3,750 on electric cars - saying it was set to slash costs for thousands of UK drivers with an impressive £650million fund. It boasted that the scheme would be up and running within days, with manufacturers handling the paperwork. Taking the news at face value, I initially welcomed such a bold move. But having delved into the detail, this is nothing short of an ill-conceived policy that raises more questions than answers. Instead of encouraging electric car uptake, it will instead restrict consumer choice. Labour really needs to go back to the drawing board on this one... Despite a new EV being registered every 60 seconds in June, private buyer sales have stalled. They now make up just under 20 per cent of registrations, with the bulk going to company car drivers who enjoy generous tax breaks if they go electric. In our November 2024 survey with the AA - responded to by over 11,000 UK drivers - 76 per cent told us that the upfront cost was the biggest barrier to switching. I believed fresh incentives would reignite momentum and give more drivers the confidence to switch. My calculations suggested almost half of all new electric models on sale would fall below the £37,000 price cap. Crucially, this support appeared to be aimed where it was needed most: from school-run staples to budget-friendly runarounds. How wrong I was. As they say, the devil is in the details - and as the week has unfolded, the details behind those upbeat headlines have painted a very different picture. Instead of a straightforward grant on all EVs under £37,000 - designed to help hard-working people make a sustainable choice - the rigid rules and baffling conditions surrounding which cars qualify (and by how much) have left even the carmakers scratching their heads. At the heart of this complexity is something called a Science Based Target (SBT), which requires manufacturers to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with limiting global warming to 1.5C or below 2C, as set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. You'd assume the government would have a simple list of eligible manufacturers. Apparently not. Instead, car makers - with customers in dealerships already asking about discounts - are left wading through bureaucracy to figure it all out. Even if a company has signed up to an SBT - like Renault or Ford - the scheme may still reject cars assembled in countries with poor overall sustainability records or high emissions. And, surprise surprise, even that isn't as simple as it sounds. The emissions calculations are split between where the battery is made and where the car itself is built. This means a car assembled in the UK or Europe may score well for manufacturing and earn the minimum £1,500 grant, but fail to reach the additional 70 per cent score needed for the full £3,750 if its battery is sourced from a country with a lower environmental score. Transport Minister Lilian Greenwood told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday: 'We don't expect any cars that are assembled in China to be eligible for this scheme.' This rules out cars like the Volvo EX30, the Mini electric (which incidentally, is built in factories powered by renewable energy), the MG4 and the Dacia Spring - family favourites which it seems won't qualify for a penny. Making matters worse, many manufacturers striving to make EVs cheaper have switched to LFP batteries, which are predominantly made in China. So much for my celebrations that the grant was focused on more affordable models. The reality is that car making is a global business. Even if your car doesn't bear a Chinese badge, the chances are part of it was manufactured there. And it's not just Chinese-made cars at risk of ending up with nothing - brands from other nations like Korea which make some of the UK's most popular cars could also end up with many models being excluded. The government is effectively limiting consumer choice at the very moment they should be encouraging it. Far from being the shot in the arm that private buyers need, this ill-conceived grant scheme has only created questions and confusion. I'm now telling anyone in the market for a new EV to pause before making a decision - especially since, bizarrely, it appears that if the entry-level model of a car costs under £37,000, the more expensive versions and trims in the same range might still be eligible for discounts. This scheme encapsulates everything that's wrong with government policymaking: good intentions, badly thought through and buried under layers of bureaucracy. It simply seems half-baked, with an announcement which was made too early. If Labour truly wants to accelerate EV adoption, they need to go back to the drawing board and design something that actually works for the people it's supposed to help and gives everyone some clarity. My advice? Start with the used market.
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cost of living: Council pauses bid for living wage recognition
An Oxfordshire council has "paused" its bid to be accredited as an employer that pays the real living councillors on Vale of White Horse District Council pushed for the move back in 2023, after it was revealed some council contractors were paying the lower minimum the Lib Dem-controlled authority said it had undertaken a "consideration of workload" following the government's announcement that local government would be said that it would be "for the new council to set its own direction on HR matters such as pay". The Living Wage Foundation puts the real living wage at £12.60 per hour outside London - above the National Minimum Wage of £ says that more than 16,000 employers have been given an accreditation for paying the higher Vale of White Horse District Council said getting that accreditation involved contacting all the authority's third-party suppliers and contractors to seek their commitment to pay the living said that was a "time-consuming and resource intensive process".Green councillor Katherine Foxhall said the decision to pause work towards accreditation was said: "We still really think that it's vital that as major employers within the county, that councils really lead by example."Particularly in the context of local government reform, what we're trying to get our leaders to do is to set the tone and the priorities of whichever authority that follows."It's really vital that we say these are the things that are important to us, these are our priorities."Paying people fairly is a crucial aspect of council services."Under plans for local government reorganisation, district councils in Oxfordshire will cease to exist in 2028, and the county's two tier system will be replaced with unitary authorities. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
