Editorial guidelines

These are the rules we hold ourselves to. They exist so you can judge our work, and so we can be held to a standard when we fall short of it.

1. We test before we recommend

Where a product can be signed up for, we sign up for it. We go through the application, note what is asked, what it costs, and where the process is unclear. If we have not used something, we say so rather than implying we have.

2. We show the trade-offs

There is no universally best product, only the right fit for a given situation. Every recommendation names who it suits and who should look elsewhere. A review with no drawbacks is an advertisement.

3. Commercial relationships never buy coverage

We earn commissions on some links. No provider can pay for inclusion, for a better ranking, or for a more favourable verdict. No commercial partner sees content before publication. Where a well-paying product is a poor fit for our readers, we say so.

4. We cite sources and show numbers

Claims about rates, costs, and rules are sourced to the provider, a regulator, or published data — not to other blogs. Where figures change over time, we date them.

5. Review before publication

Nothing goes out on one person's judgement. Every article is reviewed by at least one other member of the group for accuracy and for anything that reads as a sales pitch.

6. We update and we correct

Financial products change constantly. We revisit published articles on a rolling basis and mark material updates. When we get something wrong, we fix it and note the correction rather than quietly editing it away.

7. We stay inside our competence

We explain how products work and how they compare. We do not give personal financial, legal, or tax advice, and we point readers to licensed professionals where a decision warrants one.

Tell us when we are wrong

If you spot an error, send us a message. Corrections are read and acted on, and we update the article rather than quietly editing it away.