Editorial policy

Independence

Providers do not see our reviews before publication. They cannot pay for a higher score, a better position, or the removal of a criticism. No provider has any input into our scoring model or its weightings.

Where we hold a commercial arrangement, we say so on the page. Where we do not, we say that too.

How we score

Every account is scored out of five across seven weighted criteria: service quality and support (22%), range of features (17%), deposit protection (17%), total cost of use (16%), interest on balances (12%), payments and cash access (10%) and eligibility breadth (6%). The full breakdown is published on the homepage.

The FSCS cap

No account without FSCS protection on its everyday balance can score above 3.5 out of 5, however good it is otherwise. Several popular providers are electronic money institutions rather than banks, and we do not think a better app compensates for the absence of a statutory guarantee. Affected accounts show the cap on their page rather than having it hidden in the total.

Service quality

Not our impression of the app. UK banks are legally required to publish independent service data under the CMA’s Retail Banking Order, surveyed by BVA BDRC (now part of Ipsos) across roughly 1,200 customers per provider and updated every six months. We combine it with public review platforms, and we publish the component weightings.

Five providers we cover are below the survey threshold or are not banks. Their service score rests on review platforms alone, which is weaker evidence, and we state that on each of their pages.

Interest

We score the net yield, not the headline AER: interest on a representative £25,000 balance, minus the extra annual cost of the plan needed to unlock that rate, adjusted for how quickly you can access the money. A rate you must pay a subscription to reach is not the rate you earn.

Sources and verification

Fees and rates come from the provider’s own published material wherever possible. Every provider page states when we last checked, and figures we have not verified directly are labelled unverified rather than presented as fact.

We do not treat third-party comparison sites as authoritative. We have been burned doing so — see our corrections position — and now use them only as a pointer to a primary source.

Corrections

When we get something wrong we change it and say so. Material corrections are noted on the page rather than made silently. If you spot an error, tell us.

Fees change without notice and providers rarely announce increases. If a page has not been re-checked recently, treat its figures as indicative and confirm with the provider before applying.

Affiliate links and advertising

Some links to providers earn a commission if you open an account. Those links are marked on every page, without exception, and carry the rel="sponsored" attribute required by search engines and consistent with UK advertising rules.

Commission never affects ranking order, scores, or what we are willing to publish. Several accounts at the top of our ranking pay us nothing and are linked directly. We do not accept payment for reviews, placements or removals.

You never pay more for using our link, and it has no effect on the provider’s decision about your application.

What we are not

This site is an independent editorial publication. It is not a bank, a broker, an introducer or a financial adviser, and it is not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Nothing published here is regulated financial advice and none of it takes your individual circumstances into account.

For advice on your business, speak to an accountant or an FCA-authorised adviser.

Use of AI

We use AI tools to help with research, drafting and building this site, in the same way we use spreadsheets and search engines. Every published figure is checked by a human against a source, every conclusion is a human judgement, and we take full responsibility for everything on the site — including the mistakes.