Our methodology

• Detailed cost analysis that covers over 20 scenarios across 7 different portfolio sizes, ranging from £1,000 - £300,000. Scenarios include share trading analysis, funds, and ready-made investment solutions

• Cost scenarios were based on larger portfolios as average pension pots are larger than ISAs

• Detailed cost analysis that covers 18 scenarios across 9 different portfolio sizes, ranging from £1,000 - £750,000. Scenarios include platform administration charges and an all-in cost of investing with a ready-made investment option

Other factors considered included drawdown capability, the presence of any additional pension charges, consolidation functionality and support, as well as plan/wrapper administration.

• Detailed cost analysis that covers 14 scenarios across 7 different portfolio sizes, ranging from £1,000 to £300,000. Scenarios include platform administration charges and an all-in cost of investing with a ready-made investment option. Guidance and information for less experienced investors was also considered.

• Detailed cost analysis that covers 12 scenarios across 6 different portfolio sizes, ranging from £1,000 - £100,000. Scenarios include platform administration charges and an all-in cost of investing with a ready-made investment option

We also incorporate a custom JISA score, which is based on factors like:

• Streamlined account management​

• Ease of gifting​

• Non-guardian contributions​

• Guidance and information support

• Website, app and feature testing with a focus on beginner needs

• Detailed cost analysis that covers 10 scenarios across 5 different portfolio sizes, ranging from £1,000 - £50,000. Scenarios include platform administration charges and an all-in cost of investing with a ready-made investment option

• Increased weighting on guidance and UX

Minimum investment sizes and onboarding journeys factored into the process.

This award is more subjective and does not formally incorporate customer reviews.​ We looked to recognise those platforms which combine features and charges to offer a compelling platform for share traders. ​

Boring Money researchers reviewed features and functionality with a focus on share trading. ​7 different portfolios were assessed for costs, across different sizes and trading patterns. The costs were modelled on listed securities only. ​

We also considered:​

• Dealing fees​

• Choice and range of listed securities available ​

• Access to international markets​

• Analysis tools available on specific shares

• Share-based content

• Clarity and distinction between shares and CFDs

This award is assessed with several factors which include input and scores from thousands of customers, as well as in-house research by Boring Money, including:

• Scores from 20,000 users about their last interaction with their platform ​

• 9 calls to each provider at different times and on different days ​

• Call centre answer & opening times​

• Customer ratings on service

• Customer recommendation scores​

• Feature analysis including webchat, FAQ sections & secure messaging functionality

This award is purely focused on cost and does not factor in customer reviews or feedback, nor Boring Money feature testing.​

Different portfolios were assessed across a variety of sizes, taking into account both platform charges and the total cost of investing in a ready-made solution.

This award is purely focused on cost and does not factor in customer reviews or feedback, nor Boring Money feature testing.

Different portfolios were assessed across a variety of sizes, taking into account platform charges on portfolios invested in funds and shares.

Providers included must offer a decent range of mutual funds and direct access to shares.

This award is purely focused on cost and does not factor in customer reviews or feedback, nor Boring Money feature testing.​

Portfolios were assessed across a variety of sizes under the £50k threshold, taking into account both platform charges and the total cost of investing in a ready-made solution.

• Scores are weighted to reflect the primary offering of the platform, with greater emphasis placed on administration charges or ready-made solutions, depending on the platform.

This award is purely focused on cost and does not factor in customer reviews or feedback, nor Boring Money feature testing.​

Different portfolios were assessed across a variety of sizes, taking into account both platform charges and the total cost of investing in a ready-made solution. We modelled costs for:​

• £50,000​

• £100,000​

• £250,000​

• £500,000​

• £750,000​

We selected the best options for low-cost advice and planning, focused on people with between £50k and £150k of investable assets.

We considered charges, fee structure, the level of support received by customers, the range of issues that support and advice could be provided on, the quality of help offered to customers, the usefulness of recommendations, whether or not the wider financial situation was factored into the process, eligibility to use the service, and overall ease of process.

To calculate this award, Boring Money have assessed the following factors:

• 5-year performance to the end of 2025

• Boring Money assessed 3 portfolios per provider, choosing a low risk, medium risk, and high risk option, based on equity allocation, from a range of portfolios offered by the provider

• High and medium risk solutions had a greater contribution to the performance score than the low risk solution

Boring Money evaluates workplace pension providers using a balanced four-pillar rating system: Customer Reviews (we examine feedback from Google, Trustpilot, and our own platform to gauge real user satisfaction), Service Quality (we test apps, customer support, and complaint handling firsthand), Performance (we analyse 1, 3 and 5-year investment returns compared to market quartiles), and Fees & Charges (we calculate total costs including hidden fees against market benchmarks). We also look at longevity and corporate backing to ensure we are working with solid, established businesses.