Prediction Markets Best
Menu

Trust

How we score platforms

Every number on this site comes from the same model, assessed by our editorial team and stored with its revision history. This page is the model. If you disagree with a weight, you can see exactly which one moved a platform and by how much.

Our editorial score is out of ten and reflects the criteria we have assessed. Unassessed criteria remain unrated. Where shown, popularity is reported separately. Popularity is a measure of attention, not of quality, and is labelled as such wherever it appears.

The nine criteria

Each criterion is scored 0–10 with a written justification. The weighted sum is the Editor Score, out of 100 points of weight in total. Weights were set once, in public, and changing one requires re-scoring every platform in the catalogue.

  1. Liquidity & volumes

    20%

    Spreads on top markets, order book depth, monthly volume

  2. Fees & costs

    15%

    Trading fee, withdrawal fee, spread, gas for on-chain

  3. Regulation & trust

    15%

    Licensing, incident history, fund segregation

  4. Market variety

    12%

    Categories, active market count, listing speed for new events

  5. Deposits & withdrawals

    12%

    Methods, speed, minimums, KYC triggers

  6. UX & mobile

    10%

    Apps, execution speed, interface

  7. Resolution

    8%

    Oracle transparency, history of disputed resolutions

  8. Bonuses & promos

    4%

    Availability and fairness of terms

  9. Support

    4%

    Channels, response time (measured in-house)

Unrated criteria. A criterion we have not assessed yet is excluded rather than scored zero, and its weight is redistributed proportionally across the ones we have rated. A half-finished review therefore reads as a score in the right range rather than being dragged toward zero by absent data.

Preliminary scores. Below 80% of the total weight, the score is published with a “preliminary” label and the review says which criteria are still open.

Payment cannot move a score. The function that computes the Editor Score receives the nine ratings and nothing else — it is never passed the platform record, so it cannot read whether we earn a commission from that platform. Commercial status decides whether a placement is labelled “Ad”; it has no path into the arithmetic.

Risk flags

Every review carries the same standard flags, set by rules over the facts on record — none is added or removed by hand. A flag says what the record shows or lacks; it is not a verdict on the operator.

FlagLevelWhen it appears
No licence statedHighThe record names no regulator or licence (play-money sites excepted).
Holds your funds without a regulatorHighThe platform is custodial: it keeps customer money with no regulator overseeing it.
High regulatory riskHighA licence is stated, but regulation is rated below 5/10.
Limited in N US statesWatchAt least one US state has a rule of “unavailable” or “restricted”, by the operator’s choice or a state order.
Fees not publishedWatchNo fee line, fee figure or fee rating is on the record.
Too little documented to scoreWatchRated criteria cover less than 35% of the declared weight, so no headline score is shown.
Short track recordWatchThe platform launched this year or last.
Scored on under half the criteriaNoteThe score rests on less than 50% of the declared weight.
Not open to US residentsNoteThe country-wide US rule is “unavailable”.
Restricted for US residentsNoteThe country-wide US rule is “restricted”.
Play money onlyNoteBalances are not cash and cannot be withdrawn as money.

How a review is researched

  1. Identify the product and operatorDistinguish the exchange, broker, protocol and play-money product before comparing them.
  2. Read primary sourcesUse published fee schedules, terms, rulebooks and regulator records. Record the source and date in the review.
  3. Assess what the evidence supportsExplain each scored criterion. Leave missing evidence unrated and disclose estimates and limitations.
  4. Separate research from account testingOnly a dated test record supports a claim about our own deposit, trade or withdrawal. Reading a fee schedule is not a funded-account test.
  5. Publish coverage and limitationsShow the share of the scoring model assessed and mark incomplete assessments as preliminary.
  6. Record material changesReassess affected criteria when evidence changes. Score revisions are logged; a publication date is not a guarantee that every fact remains current.

How we make money, plainly

  • Affiliate commission when a reader opens an account through our link. A commission is possible only where a partner arrangement exists.
  • Paid features carry an “Ad” label. They do not change Editor Scores or the order of editorial rankings.
  • Display advertising sold directly, kept out of the ranked tables.
  • Platforms with no affiliate programme are reviewed on identical terms; their links still route through /go/ so we can count clicks.

Recent score changes

  1. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.3 Change against the previous revision: −0.3
  2. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.6 Change against the previous revision: −0.1
  3. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.7 Change against the previous revision: −0.1
  4. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.8 Change against the previous revision: +0.3
  5. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.5 Change against the previous revision: +0.3
  6. Dexsport — Editor Score 7.2 Change against the previous revision: +0.6

Our policies

Found a factual error? Write to team@predictionmarketsbest.com. We review reported errors and note material corrections on the page. Platforms may request a re-test after a material product change; a re-test never guarantees a higher score.