Two sites now promise to answer the same question: is this broker really licensed? TrustLicense shows its full method in public: regulator-sourced records, a three-check verification, an A-to-D grading of regulators, and a live badge brokers embed on their own sites. WikiLicense presents itself as a license-information service in the same space. Here is the honest version of this comparison: one side publishes its methodology where anyone can read it, while the other currently serves automated checks an obfuscated page with no readable content, so its feature claims cannot be independently verified in this session. That asymmetry is itself the first finding. The licence guide we publish alongside teaches the underlying checks both services claim to automate.
What TrustLicense discloses
TrustLicense verifies three things and says so upfront: the license record against the regulator's public register, the licensed entity matched to the brand operating the platform rather than a lookalike or holding company, and the official domain matched to the licensed entity to block clone sites borrowing real numbers. Every claim links back to the regulator's own register. It grades regulators in four tiers: 20 in tier A on capital rules, compensation schemes and enforcement, 79 in tier B, 48 in tier C and 49 in tier D. Live examples on the page show CySEC 120/10 active, FSCA 49976 active and DFSA F003484 active, each stamped last-checked-today with a source link. The broker path runs submit domain, review the findings, activate a hover badge with one line of code. The three-match rule is the manual version of the same discipline.
What can and cannot be said about WikiLicense
What is verifiable: the service exists at wikilicense.com with an English front page positioning around license information. What is not verifiable from outside its walls: its sourcing, its grading if any, its entity-matching method, its update cadence, or its badge mechanics, because automated retrieval returns an encrypted anti-bot payload rather than page content. That may reflect aggressive bot protection rather than thin methodology, and human visitors may see a complete product. But a verification service that cannot itself be inspected inherits a trust deficit with exactly the audience it courts: compliance-minded readers. The Warsaw exits show why verifiable entity data matters more than branding.
- TrustLicense: method, grades and sources public
- WikiLicense: exists, content bot-walled to checks
- Shared promise: answer is-this-broker-licensed
- Decider: traceability of every claim
How to judge any license checker
Use four tests. Source test: does every claim link to the regulator register, or does the verdict arrive without provenance? Entity test: does it match the operating brand to the licensed legal person, catching lookalikes? Freshness test: is there a last-checked date, and does badge status stay live? Grade test: does it distinguish a tier-A regulator from registration-level paper, or do all licences look equal? TrustLicense answers all four on its public page. For any competitor, run the same four questions before trusting a badge on a broker homepage. The CFD giants all submit to these checks. Source: FCA register.
A verification badge is only as honest as its methodology page. One of these two publishes it. That is the comparison.
Why method matters in licence checking
A licence checker is only as useful as its sources. A service that links each verdict to the regulator's own register lets users confirm the result themselves in seconds. A service that gives a verdict without showing where it came from asks users to trust it blindly. Because licence status changes, with licences granted, suspended, restricted or withdrawn, a checker also needs to show when each record was last updated.
The hardest part: matching entities to brands
The most common mistake in licence checking is confusing a brand with a legal entity. A broker brand may operate several companies in different countries, each with its own licence or none. A strong checker matches the specific entity that operates a website, or serves a given country, to the specific licence. A weak one shows a licence held by one company in a group as if it covered every brand and website using the same name.
Regulators' own tools are improving
Several regulators now offer better access to their registers. The FCA publishes its Financial Services Register with search tools and a data interface that third parties can use, and other regulators publish downloadable lists of licensed firms and warnings. These tools make it easier for independent services to keep data current, and for users to check results directly. Over time, licence checkers that rely on official data feeds will have an advantage over those that compile records by hand.
Four tests to apply to any checker
- Source: does each verdict link to the regulator's own register?
- Entity: does it match the legal entity that operates the website you are using?
- Freshness: does it show when the record was last checked?
- Independence: does it explain how it earns money and whether brokers can pay for placement?
A checker that passes all four is a useful shortcut. One that fails any of them should be treated as a starting point, not an answer.
Badges on broker websites
Brokers increasingly display badges from licence checkers and review sites. A badge is only as good as the service behind it and how current it is. Clicking through to the underlying record, and then to the regulator's register, takes a minute and confirms whether the badge reflects the broker's current status. Badges that do not link anywhere, or link to an image rather than a live record, deserve suspicion.
What users should do regardless of the checker
Whatever service is used, the final check is the same: find the entity named in the client agreement, search it in the regulator's register directly, confirm its status and permissions, and check that the website and contact details match. Licence checkers can save time, but the register is the record.
The bigger picture
License verification is becoming infrastructure, with badges travelling across broker homepages like trust marks. The services that win will be the ones whose own claims survive the inspection they sell. Transparency compounds: public methodology invites scrutiny, scrutiny forces accuracy, accuracy earns the badge premium. Opacity works until the first wrong verdict.
What to watch next
Watch whether WikiLicense opens its methodology to inspection. Watch badge adoption across broker homepages as the distribution race. And watch regulators, whose register APIs decide how live any badge can honestly claim to be.
What does TrustLicense verify?
Three things against regulator registers: the license record and status, the licensed entity matched to the operating brand, and the official domain matched to the entity, with A-to-D regulator grading and a live hover badge.
Why is WikiLicense marked unverifiable?
Its pages serve automated checks an obfuscated anti-bot payload with no readable content, so sourcing, grading, entity matching and freshness cannot be independently confirmed in this session.
How do I know if a licence checker is reliable?
Check whether it links each verdict to the regulator's register, matches the operating entity, shows when data was updated and explains how it earns money.
Do broker badges prove a broker is licensed?
Not on their own. Click through to the underlying record and then confirm the licence in the regulator's own register.
Why do brands and entities get confused?
Because one brand can operate several legal companies in different countries, each with a different licence or none.
You've finished this story
Read on, send it to someone, or ask about it.
