Every score on PredictionScout comes from the same framework, applied the same way, every time. This page explains exactly how we evaluate prediction market platforms — what we measure, how we weight it, and what it takes to earn each score. If you think we got something wrong, you can hold us to this.
Last updated: March 2026 (v1.0)
The Core Principle
Separate facts from opinions. Score both. Show your work.
Every platform evaluation has two layers:
- Objective criteria — measurable, verifiable, no judgment required. Fees, withdrawal time, regulatory status. Either a platform has segregated customer funds or it doesn’t. Either it charges 3% or it charges 9%.
- Subjective criteria — experience-based, requiring defined rubrics to stay consistent. UX quality, support responsiveness. Without rubrics, “good UX” is just a feeling. With rubrics, it’s a defensible judgment.
Both matter. Both get scored. Neither gets inflated because a platform is paying us an affiliate commission.
The Scoring System
We score each platform on a 10-point scale per category, then calculate a weighted composite score. Half-points are allowed (a platform can earn a 7.5, not just a 7 or 8).
Why 10 points? Granular enough to differentiate platforms meaningfully. Simple enough that you understand a 6 vs an 8 at a glance. And it translates cleanly to visual displays — a score badge, a comparison table, a bar chart.
Scoring Categories and Weights
| Category | Weight | Type | Why This Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Status & Fund Safety | 20% | Objective | If your money isn’t safe, nothing else matters |
| Fees & Costs | 15% | Objective | Direct impact on every trade you make |
| Market Selection | 15% | Mixed | Can you trade what you came here for? |
| Liquidity & Execution | 15% | Tested | Can you actually trade at the prices shown? |
| Withdrawal Experience | 10% | Tested | The moment of truth — getting your money out |
| User Experience | 10% | Subjective | Matters most for beginners, less for veterans |
| Deposit & Funding Options | 5% | Objective | How you get money in |
| Customer Support | 5% | Tested | When things go wrong |
| Tax & Reporting Tools | 5% | Objective | An overlooked pain point that bites users at tax time |
Total: 100%. Regulatory status gets 20% because a platform that loses your money fails at the most fundamental level, regardless of how clean its interface is. Fees, market selection, and liquidity each get 15% because they directly determine whether you can profitably do what you came to do. Everything else fills out the remaining 40% based on real-world impact.
Category Rubrics
These rubrics define exactly what a platform must do to earn each score range. Reviewers are not allowed to deviate from them without a documented reason and a methodology version update.
1. Regulatory Status & Fund Safety — 20%
This is where we ask: if the platform shuts down tomorrow, what happens to your money? The answer ranges from “you’re fully protected” to “you’re probably out of luck.”
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Regulated by a primary financial authority (CFTC, FCA). Segregated customer funds. Insurance or bonding protections in place. Independently audited. |
| 7–8 | Regulated through secondary body or licensing arrangement. Customer funds held separately, but limited formal protections. |
| 5–6 | Operates under a regulatory gray area or specific exemption. Some fund protections, not fully guaranteed. |
| 3–4 | Minimal regulation. Offshore structure or jurisdiction-shopping. Limited recourse if the platform fails. |
| 1–2 | Unregulated. No fund protections. Significant counterparty risk. |
2. Fees & Costs — 15%
We measure total round-trip cost, not just the headline trading fee. Our standard test: deposit $100, buy a $50 position, sell or let it settle, withdraw the remaining balance. Every fee touched along that path counts.
Fees measured include: trading fees and spreads, withdrawal fees, deposit fees, inactivity fees, and settlement costs.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Total round-trip cost under 2%. No hidden fees. Fee structure clearly documented and easy to calculate in advance. |
| 7–8 | Total round-trip cost 2–5%. Minor fees on some operations. Pricing is transparent even if not zero. |
| 5–6 | Total round-trip cost 5–8%. Some fees obscured or complex to calculate before you commit. |
| 3–4 | Total round-trip cost 8–12%. Hidden or confusing fee structures that make real cost hard to know upfront. |
| 1–2 | Total round-trip cost over 12%. Predatory or deliberately opaque fee model. |
3. Market Selection — 15%
A platform with 500 markets you don’t care about is less useful than one with 50 markets you do. We score breadth of categories and depth within each, plus how actively new markets are added.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | 6+ categories (politics, finance, weather, sports, entertainment, crypto/tech). 200+ active markets. Regular new market creation. |
| 7–8 | 4–5 categories. 100–200 active markets. Steady market additions. |
| 5–6 | 2–3 categories. 50–100 active markets. Occasional new additions. |
| 3–4 | 1–2 categories. Under 50 active markets. Slow to add new ones. |
| 1–2 | Very limited selection. Markets rarely added. |
4. Liquidity & Execution — 15%
This is tested, not claimed. We place real trades and measure what actually happens at the order book — not what the platform says will happen.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Can fill $500+ orders with less than 1% slippage across most markets. Tight bid-ask spreads under 3 cents. |
| 7–8 | Can fill $200–500 orders with minimal slippage. Spreads 3–5 cents on popular markets. |
| 5–6 | Can fill $100–200 orders. Noticeable slippage on medium-size trades. Spreads 5–10 cents. |
| 3–4 | Difficulty filling orders over $100. Wide spreads. Thin order books in most markets. |
| 1–2 | Effectively illiquid. Prices shown are not executable at any meaningful size. |
5. Withdrawal Experience — 10%
Getting money in is easy. Getting money out is where platforms reveal their true character. We time every withdrawal from initiation to funds in our account.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Funds received within 24 hours. Multiple withdrawal methods. No unexpected holds or verification hurdles at withdrawal. |
| 7–8 | Funds received within 2–3 business days. At least 2 withdrawal methods. Smooth process with no surprises. |
| 5–6 | Funds received within 5 business days. Limited withdrawal methods. Minor friction. |
| 3–4 | Over 5 business days. Additional verification requirements triggered at withdrawal. Complaints from users are common. |
| 1–2 | Unreliable. Delayed or stuck withdrawals. Reports of funds inaccessible for extended periods. |
6. User Experience — 10%
We score UX from the perspective of a competent adult new to prediction markets — not a developer, not a day trader, not someone who already knows what a limit order is.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Clean interface. Functional mobile app. A complete beginner could find a market, understand the contract, and place a trade in under 5 minutes. |
| 7–8 | Good interface with minor friction. Mobile works. A beginner needs 10–15 minutes but gets there. |
| 5–6 | Functional but dated or cluttered. Weak mobile experience. Several confusion points for new users. |
| 3–4 | Difficult interface. No native mobile app. Significant learning curve even for motivated users. |
| 1–2 | Confusing or broken interface. Actively impedes trading. |
7. Deposit & Funding Options — 5%
How many ways can you get money onto the platform, and how quickly does it clear? We test the most common method available in the US.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | 4+ deposit methods (bank transfer, debit card, credit card, crypto, PayPal or similar). Funds clear within 24 hours for at least one method. No deposit fees. |
| 7–8 | 2–3 deposit methods. Funds clear within 1–3 business days. Low or no deposit fees. |
| 5–6 | 1–2 methods. Funds may take 3–5 days to clear. Minor deposit fees. |
| 3–4 | Limited methods. Slow clearing times. Deposit fees present. |
| 1–2 | Single method. Long clearing times. High deposit fees. |
8. Customer Support — 5%
We test support by submitting a real, non-trivial question — fee calculations, settlement timing, verification requirements. Not “how do I sign up.” We document response time and whether the answer was actually helpful.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Live chat plus email. Response within 2 hours. Our test issue was resolved completely and correctly. |
| 7–8 | Email support. Response within 24 hours. Helpful and accurate resolution. |
| 5–6 | Email only. Response within 48 hours. Generic but adequate. |
| 3–4 | Slow responses (3+ days). Unhelpful or scripted replies that don’t address the actual question. |
| 1–2 | No response to our inquiry, or no visible support channels to begin with. |
9. Tax & Reporting Tools — 5%
Tax treatment of prediction market winnings is an unsettled area — no formal IRS guidance as of 2026. That makes it even more important that platforms give users clean records to work with.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Provides 1099 or equivalent tax document. Downloadable transaction history in standard format (CSV). Tax guide available for users. |
| 7–8 | Provides tax documents. Transaction history available but requires some manual work to format. |
| 5–6 | Basic transaction history only. No formal tax documents. User must calculate gains and losses themselves. |
| 3–4 | Limited records. Difficult to reconstruct trade history for tax purposes. |
| 1–2 | No transaction export capability. Tax reporting effectively impossible without manual tracking. |
Our Testing Protocol
Every full platform review follows these steps in sequence. If a step can’t be completed — for example, a platform isn’t available in our state — we disclose it clearly in the review and mark the relevant score categories as “Based on Public Data” with a reduced confidence indicator.
- Account creation. Sign up and complete identity verification. We document the time from starting the application to receiving approval and being able to trade.
- Deposit $200 via the most common method available to US users (bank transfer or debit card). We document how long it takes for funds to be available for trading.
- Place 5 trades across different market categories at $20–50 each. We record the bid-ask spread on entry, whether our order filled at the displayed price, and any slippage experienced.
- Monitor positions for at least 2 weeks. We assess notification quality, position management tools, and whether the platform behaves the way it says it does during the holding period.
- Contact customer support with a specific, non-trivial question about fee calculations or settlement timing. We document the response time and whether the answer was accurate and useful.
- Withdraw $100 via the most common method. We time from withdrawal initiation to funds arriving in our bank account and document every fee deducted along the way.
- Calculate total cost across the entire test cycle — every fee paid from deposit through withdrawal.
- Review tax and reporting tools. Export the transaction history, check for 1099 or equivalent availability, and document what a user would need to do to file their taxes based on this platform alone.
Testing takes a minimum of 6 weeks per platform. We do not publish a review until the full protocol is complete.
Anti-Gaming Protections
The most common way review sites get corrupted: affiliate partners start paying more, rankings start changing. Here’s how we prevent that.
- Scores follow rubrics, not feelings. If a platform meets the criteria for a 7, it gets a 7 — regardless of how much it pays us in affiliate commissions. The rubric is the arbiter, not our relationship with the platform.
- Retesting on a fixed schedule. Major platforms are retested every 6 months. Score changes are published with a changelog and the date of testing.
- Commission transparency on every review. Each review discloses exactly what we earn: “We receive a $X CPA from this platform” or “We have no affiliate relationship with this platform.” No vague “we may be compensated” language.
- Methodology changes are versioned. If we adjust a category weight or rubric definition, we publish the change with our reasoning. You can see version history at the bottom of this page.
- Negative reviews stay published. A poor score doesn’t come down because a platform offers us a better deal. If anything, a platform trying to buy a score change is worth documenting.
“Best For” Rankings and Modified Weights
A single composite score doesn’t capture everything. A platform that’s great for election traders might be mediocre for beginners. Instead of one ranking that pretends to serve everyone, we publish multiple “Best For” lists with adjusted weights tailored to each use case.
| Ranking | What Changes |
|---|---|
| Best for Beginners | UX weight raised to 25%. Liquidity lowered to 10%. Ease of getting started matters more than execution quality at small sizes. |
| Best for Election Markets | Market Selection weighted by political market depth specifically. Platforms filtered by quality of political contract coverage. |
| Best for Low Fees | Fees weight raised to 30%. Everything else scales down proportionally. The cost-sensitive trader’s view. |
| Best for US Users | Filtered to CFTC-regulated platforms only. Regulatory score threshold applied as a filter, not just a weight. |
| Best for Crypto Users | Filtered to platforms accepting crypto deposits. Deposit options weight raised to reflect this preference. |
| Best for Safety | Regulatory weight raised to 30%. Withdrawal experience raised to 15%. For users where capital preservation is the top priority. |
Each “Best For” page explains the modified weights and why they fit that use case. The underlying platform data is the same — only the weighting changes.
How Scores Appear in Reviews
In individual platform reviews, you’ll find:
- An overall composite score displayed prominently
- A category-by-category breakdown with the score and a brief explanation
- A “What We Tested” section with the testing dates
- The affiliate disclosure at the top of the page — not buried in a footer
- A pros and cons section derived from the category scores, not from marketing materials
In comparison pages, you’ll find side-by-side category scores, a “best for…” callout for each platform, and quick-pick recommendations by use case.
Methodology Version History
| Version | Date | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | March 2026 | Initial methodology published. 9 categories, weights as above. Testing protocol defined. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Do affiliate relationships affect your scores?
No. Scores are determined by rubric criteria, not by whether a platform pays us. Every review discloses the exact commission relationship. If a platform that pays us well earns a low score, that score gets published.
What if a platform improves or gets worse after you publish?
We retest major platforms every 6 months and update scores with a changelog. If a significant change happens between retesting cycles — a fee increase, a regulatory action, a withdrawal problem — we update the relevant section within one week and note the change.
What does “Based on Public Data” mean in a review?
It means we couldn’t complete that part of the testing protocol for that platform — usually because it wasn’t available in our state or required citizenship verification we couldn’t provide. Those score categories carry a lower confidence rating and we explain exactly what data we used instead.
Can I suggest a platform for review?
Yes. Use the contact form on the About page. We prioritize platforms based on US availability, regulatory status, and user volume. We don’t accept payment to expedite reviews.
How do I know when a score has been updated?
Each review shows a “Last tested” date. The methodology version history above tracks changes to the scoring framework itself. For significant score changes, we note the date and reason in the review’s changelog section.