Once you answer the comparison questions, providers are sorted by the selected scenario's comparable fee rate from lowest to highest. You can also sort by provider name from the table header.

It compares modelled platform costs across providers, plans, account types and stylised user scenarios. The goal is not one universal winner but to provide a clearer view of which platform best fits different types of investor.

Primarily from each provider's own public material. We read what the provider publishes for retail customers: pricing pages, the canonical "Schedule of Charges" or "Rates and Charges" document, key-features documents, terms & conditions, foreign-exchange disclosures, cash-interest pages and linked FAQs that clarify fees or availability.

User feedback and public discussion can help us spot gaps or stale pages, but the modelled fee rule still needs to be traceable to a provider source or another clearly identified public source before it is used in the comparison.

Agentic AI helps us build provider-specific model code, generate account/scenario settings and audit the model output against the source evidence.

The public comparison itself is deterministic: the published snapshot runs the same scenarios through each provider model and tallies the ledger. AI does not pick winners, adjust rankings for commercial reasons or reinterpret the final table after the calculation.

A scenario is a stylised investor: a description of which wrapper they use (GIA, ISA or SIPP), how much they hold, how much cash they keep, how often they trade and what they hold. For example, two different scenarios may be:

ISA max saver. An adult drip-feeding GBP 1,666.67 a month into a diversified, mainly-equity portfolio inside a Stocks & Shares ISA, rebalanced once a year.

Larger SIPP holder. Someone with about GBP 150,000 in a SIPP, split across a handful of ETFs, contributing modestly and trading a couple of times a year.

For each scenario we ask the same question of every platform: how much would this pattern of behaviour cost on your terms, over a long horizon?

Headline fees hide important differences. A monthly saver, a large lump-sum investor and someone trading overseas shares can all face very different costs on the same platform. A single "cheapest" league table papers over that. Scenarios make the comparison honest by asking the platform's own rules to play out against realistic behaviour.

Published charges that affect what a customer actually pays the platform or broker. Roughly:

- Platform, custody, admin and management fees, including tier breakpoints, minimums and caps.

- Dealing fees for shares, ETFs, investment trusts and funds.

- Foreign-exchange spreads and overseas-dealing surcharges.

- The gap between what a provider earns on customer cash and what it pays the customer (see below).

- Account-opening, transfer-in, transfer-out, re-registration, inactivity, paper-statement and closure charges.

- SIPP-specific extras like drawdown set-up, income payments and annual reviews.

- Exchange, clearing, market and regulatory levies that the provider passes through to you rather than absorbing.

To keep the comparison fair across providers, each scenario that touches overseas equity uses a fixed, simple basket: a couple of commonly-traded shares from different regions, or commonly-traded ETFs with overseas underlyings. We are not modelling any particular stock pick - the basket exists so that FX spreads, overseas-dealing surcharges and currency-conversion behaviours show up in the cost where they would in real life.

Most platforms earn interest on customer cash and pay only part of it - sometimes none - back to the customer. The difference is, economically, a fee, just not one labelled as such.

We measure that gap against the prevailing short-term interest rate for the cash currency and count the missed interest as a platform cost. If a platform pays a competitive rate, this is effectively zero; if it pays nothing on a cash buffer the customer is required to keep, it shows up.

It is the total modelled cost the customer pays the platform, across every charge category above, averaged across the simulation horizon and expressed as an annual percentage of the daily duration-weighted average portfolio value.

The reason for collapsing everything into a single rate is that providers package their pricing differently:

- Some quote a low platform fee and pass through exchange, clearing, market and regulatory charges to you on top.

- Others quote a higher platform fee that bundles those pass-throughs in.

The headline alone tells you nothing about which group a provider is in. The comparable rate adds the explicit customer pass-throughs back where they belong, so a "low headline plus pass-throughs" provider can be compared like-for-like with a "higher headline, fully bundled" one.

UK SDRT, UK PTM levy, Irish stamp duty, French / Italian / Spanish FTT and Swiss stamp duty are tracked in the simulation but excluded from the comparable fee rate because they are always passed on to the customer. Other market-infrastructure charges, such as SEC, FINRA, clearing, exchange, venue, ADR and depositary fees, are included only when a provider source explicitly says the customer pays them.

At the moment, we don't assume any. Every scenario is run with flat market returns so the comparison reflects pure platform cost, not market luck. We may add return-assumption variants later, but for the purpose of comparing fees across providers modelling in returns would most not serve the purpose of differentiating on fees.

GIA, ISA and SIPP wrappers have different rules and different provider support. A platform that is attractive for one wrapper may not be attractive for another, so we ask which wrapper you care about before showing the table.

The comparison uses the latest snapshot built by our pipeline. Provider terms can change between snapshots, so results are a review aid rather than a live quotation. Each provider's last-verified date is shown at the bottom of the comparison page. Always check the provider's current terms before opening, transferring or moving money.

The pipeline can rebuild a provider from a fresh source set, but FeeSorted is not a real-time fee monitor and we do not commit to a fixed update schedule. If a user or provider tells us an update is required, we will prioritise reviewing the source and republishing a corrected snapshot where the change is verifiable.

No. Costs are one important input, but service, investments available, account types supported, tools, transfer experience and personal circumstances still matter. For example, some SIPP providers do not offer a service where you may draw down your SIPP, so when you enter drawdown you would have to move to another provider.

Yes. The most important missing layer is the cost inside the investments themselves: fund ongoing charges, ETF costs, product spreads, dilution levies and other product-level costs. FeeSorted is focused on platform and broker charges. We would like to incorporate product-level costs later, but they are not part of the current headline comparison.

There is also the bid-offer spread on every trade. When you buy, you typically pay slightly above the mid-market price; when you sell, you receive slightly below it. The bid-offer spread is a real execution cost that differs between providers - one broker may give you a tighter spread than another on the same instrument, and the same is true for exchange rates on a currency conversion. FeeSorted assumes the same fill price across all platforms, so these execution-level differences are not reflected in the comparison. Our ranking is about the published fee schedule, not about which venue or broker consistently delivers the best fill.

Cost is one input. A non-exhaustive list of other things that matter for many people:

- Investments available - does the platform actually let you buy what you want (specific funds, ETFs, international markets, fractional shares)?

- Account types supported - not every platform offers GIA, ISA and SIPP accounts, and some only support certain SIPP features.

- Service quality - telephone wait times, complaints record, app reliability.

- Transfer experience - how painful it is to move accounts in or out.

- Tools and information - research, portfolio analytics, tax reporting.

- Cash mechanics - how quickly you can withdraw, how dividends and uninvested cash are handled.

- Customer protection - the platform should be FCA-authorised and FSCS-covered.

This list is not exhaustive. If you want a recommendation tailored to your personal circumstances, the right move is to hire an FCA-authorised independent financial adviser.

In most UK cases it is easier than people think - the two platforms handle the transfer between themselves, you do not withdraw the money yourself.

A few practical things to check before you start:

- Does the new provider support transfer-in for your wrapper type and the holdings you own?

- Are there any transfer-out charges at your current provider?

- You normally open the new account first - the new provider drives the transfer.

- You might be out of the market for some period if you are unable to transfer your assets in-specie.

- There may be tax consequences to asset transfers, for example if you realise gains from sales outside of a tax-protected wrapper.

A financial adviser would be a source of certainty here.

If a platform pays little or no interest on uninvested cash, the missed interest behaves like an indirect fee. This matters most when you keep larger cash balances - for example, between a contribution and a buy, or while building up a SIPP-drawdown buffer.

Foreign-exchange charges can dominate costs for anyone buying overseas investments, especially where each trade triggers a separate FX charge. A platform that looks cheap on UK funds can look very different the moment you buy a US share.

No. FeeSorted is a comparison and modelling tool. It does not recommend a product or provider for your personal circumstances, and the figures are experimental, AI-derived estimates based on publicly published fee schedules.

FeeSorted doesn't give advice and we don't recommend specific advisers. Two government-backed starting points in the UK:

- MoneyHelper - the free guidance service from the Money and Pensions Service: moneyhelper.org.uk .

- FCA's "Find an adviser" directory, for locating an FCA-authorised firm: fca.org.uk/consumers/finding-adviser .

For a personal recommendation about which platform or which investments suit your circumstances, you need a regulated adviser. That is not what FeeSorted is.

Yes. FeeSorted has no sponsors, no affiliate links, no paid placements, and no commercial relationship influences what appears on the comparison or where a provider ranks. We may license our research output - the comparison data itself - to a provider, but never in exchange for placement, favourable ranking or any other influence over what is shown publicly. We are not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and don't intend to be - we don't give advice, we publish a cost comparison. If we ever take revenue that could affect what is shown, we will say so plainly on this page before it goes live.

Four useful things:

- If a figure looks wrong against a provider's current published terms, tell us via the corrections / suggestions form.

- If you know of niche platform features that aren't made obvious online then we would love to hear from you. For example, UK ISA rules state that non-GBP cash is not allowed in the ISA account, which some brokers have interpretted as at the time of trade and others have interpretted as settled cash - this distinction is not readily available in term sheets online and so we may have to rely on you to provide us with this information.

- If there's a platform we don't yet cover that you think we should, the same form takes provider suggestions.

- Share the site with someone who may find it useful.

If you'd like to support FeeSorted financially, you can do so on the support page .

Please tell us via the corrections / suggestions form. The most actionable submissions include:

- The provider name.

- The account type (GIA, ISA or SIPP).

- The scenario or specific figure that looks off.

- A link to the provider's current fee page or schedule so we can verify quickly.

We'll examine the model, apply any fix we can verify against publicly stated terms, and republish on the next pipeline pass. Where the source is ambiguous, the default calculation is conservative: if the published wording gives only a range or an "often around" figure, we use the higher fee assumption until a clearer public source supports a lower one.

Use it as a comparison prompt. If a provider looks expensive for your scenario, inspect why, then check the provider's current terms before making a decision. If you want a personal recommendation, see I want financial advice above.

Providers and plans are shown from a published public snapshot as read from the provider's website. The internal tooling used to build that snapshot is private to FeeSorted. The default order is the selected scenario's comparable fee rate from lowest to highest.

Yes. We have no sponsors, no affiliates, no paid placements and no commercial relationships with any platform that impact how they are presented here. The order on the comparison page is driven by the modelled cost for the selected scenario, nothing else. If your platform looks expensive in a scenario, the cause is in the model, not in any commercial relationship - please flag it through the corrections form and we'll review.

Use the corrections / suggestions form. Include the scenario, the figure you believe is wrong, the correct figure as published in your current terms, and a link to the supporting document. We can only update the model to match what is publicly stated; private explanations, unpublished rate cards or informal clarifications cannot override the public source used for the comparison.

Where the public wording is uncertain, our default position is conservative on fee calculations unless a public source supports a narrower or lower value. For example, if a source says "FX fees are usually charged as a percentage of the amount converted, often around 0.5% to 1.5%", we would model 1.5% for all affected transactions until a more specific public fee schedule says otherwise.

The modelling pipeline is designed to support provider-specific plans, account-type coverage, trading charges, custody charges, exit charges and other fee behaviours as structured rules. If you publish a new plan or restructure your pricing, send a pointer to the canonical public schedule and we'll factor it into the next snapshot.

For the model to use a lower fee, discount, cap, exemption or eligibility rule, that rule needs to be publicly stated clearly enough to turn into a repeatable calculation. Otherwise, the conservative fee assumption remains in place.

Not without our written permission. Our figures change as providers update their pricing, and they are experimental, model-driven estimates - they should not be quoted as static claims. If you'd like to discuss commercial reuse - citing a figure in marketing, in a press release, in a presentation to partners, or anywhere else - contact us at [email protected] .

Full terms are in the Terms of use section of our terms, privacy & legal page.

Possibly. We'd like to understand what you're trying to do first. Contact us at [email protected] .

Not at this time. The comparison page does not carry paid placements and the ranking or visibility promotion is not for sale.

Yes. Scenario-based comparisons make it easier to inspect where a platform is competitive and where its pricing becomes less attractive. If you have a specific benchmarking question or scenario you'd like to see covered, contact us at [email protected] .

We model an ordinary retail customer using one provider account or plan at a time, under the provider's published standard terms. Scenarios assume the customer meets ordinary personal eligibility requirements for the wrapper they are using, such as age, residency and guardian status for junior accounts.

We focus on the arithmetic of plausible supported flows: the account exists, the investments are within the provider's documented offer, and the relevant fee rules can be turned into a repeatable calculation.

The headline comparable fee rate excludes investment performance, tax outcomes, advice fees, underlying fund or ETF ongoing charges, product spreads, market movement, personal negotiated rates, one-off cashback, referral rewards, discretionary goodwill credits and features that require holding multiple accounts together unless the scenario explicitly covers them.

Some taxes and market levies are still tracked in the simulation, but the always-passed core charges are excluded from the comparable fee rate so providers are not rewarded or penalised for taxes that every broker must pass through.

Scenarios use assets and account types that the provider evidence says are available. If a provider only offers funds, we do not run the scenario that requires single-stocks. If it offers overseas shares but not in a particular wrapper, the model will not run the wrapper against that scenario.

Standard published discounts can be modelled when the qualification rule is clear and repeatable, such as a plan tier, regular-investing price or frequent-trader rule. Time-limited cashback, free-share offers, referral rewards and activation-dependent promotions are usually excluded from the headline long-run comparison because they can change quickly and may not apply to every customer.

This project would not be possible without the use of AI. However, AI is not perfect and makes (often obvious) mistakes. We cannot guarantee a correct number, but we can offer to correct mistakes as we are made aware of them.

On receiving notifications of a correction, in most cases, we can only update the model to what a publicly stated source supports. If a fee is described as a range or in vague terms, the default position is conservative for the fee calculation unless the source gives a narrower rule. For example, if a public source says FX fees are usually charged as a percentage of the amount converted and are often around 0.5% to 1.5%, we would assume 1.5% for the affected transactions until a more specific public source says otherwise.

The most useful correction is specific: provider, account type, scenario or fee, plus a link to the current supporting source.

Your actual cost can differ for many reason, including: if you trade different assets, trade at different times, hold a different cash balance, use a different plan tier, qualify for a personal discount, receive a one-off promotion, transfer in a different way, use phone or paper services, or incur taxes and product-level costs outside our platform-cost model. There are also limitations to our ablity to model things, like a provider's access to market prices.

Treat FeeSorted as a structured comparison aid, not as a quote from the provider and not as a personal recommendation.

Yes. FeeSorted assumes that every provider can execute at the same price on every product. This applies to exchange rates and to market tradable instruments alike. In reality, execution prices differ between venues, liquidity providers and brokers, and two platforms can fill the same order at slightly different prices. We focus on the published fee schedules themselves rather than execution quality or price improvement, so the comparison provides estimates on their stated charges, not on which one secures the best market access / prices.