What a licence entry settles, and what it leaves open
A licence entry answers a narrower question than most readers expect. It names the regulator answerable for the firm, and it gives you a reference you can look up in that regulator's public register to confirm the firm is still listed and still permitted. It does not tell you who holds your account, what your balance is covered by, or what a trade costs you.
Alchemy Markets shows why that distinction matters. Entries sit against its name in more than one jurisdiction: an FCA entry for the United Kingdom, 612233, an MFSA entry for Malta, C56519, and an FSA entry for Seychelles, SD136. One brand, different complaint routes and different protection arrangements behind each entity. Treating a single entry as if it covered the whole brand is the most common reading error on this page, and the Alchemy Markets review is worth reading with that structure in mind.
Working the register search properly
Search the regulator's own public register rather than a broker's summary of it, then match the registered name and the number character for character. Read the permission the firm holds, because a permission limited to certain products tells you something different from a general one. Check for warnings, restrictions or a status that has changed, and check that the entity name on the register is the same entity named in your account agreement.
APM Markets is a straightforward example. Its FCA entry is 184333, and the firm also sets out its own risk disclosure document that belongs with that entry. ATC Brokers pairs an FCA entry, 591361, with a CIMA entry, 1448274, which tells you at a glance that its clients are split across regulated entities. Axi Affiliates holds an FCA entry, 509746 alongside an ASIC entry, 318232.
Outside the UK and Europe the same routine applies. Abf Trade Eu is listed with CySEC, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, under 171/12. arttrade carries a BaFin entry, 80175757. Al Rajhi Capital is listed with the Capital Market Authority of Saudi Arabia under 07068-37, which is the entry a reader outside the Gulf would look for first.
Bank licences answer a different question from dealing licences
A bank licence and a dealing licence do not protect money in the same way, so keep them apart when you compare. A banking entry is about deposits and the deposit insurer attached to the bank, while a dealing licence is about client positions and the client money rules the firm must follow. A broker that holds a banking licence alongside a dealing licence gives you a second answer to the safety question, not a substitute for it.
Ally Bank is a clear case. It is registered with FINRA under 136131 and holds an FDIC certificate, FDIC cert 57803, which you can read directly in the FDIC bank search record. Bank of America likewise appears in the FDIC bank search as FDIC cert 25178. Both answers belong in the same comparison as a trading licence, because the reader who is weighing where cash sits should see the deposit insurer named, and the Ally Bank review is the natural place to read the account side. A UK share dealing firm such as AJ Bell sits in the same comparison with a different kind of protection answer.
Securities protection and futures membership
Two labels appear often enough to be worth defining. A SIPC listing speaks to securities held at a broker-dealer, and it does not answer the question for leveraged CFD positions, where the relevant question is what the broker states about client money and how it is held. NFA membership is a futures membership, which obliges the firm to meet futures capital and conduct rules rather than holding your balance in the way a bank does.
Alpaca appears on the SIPC member list as SIPC member 69928, and Avenue Securities as SIPC member 70079. AMP Futures is a futures member of the NFA under 0412490. If you are choosing between firms that trade contracts for difference, a SIPC listing is not a substitute for reading the client money statement, so the Alpaca review and the AMP Futures review deserve the same attention as the register search.
Offshore structures and multi-jurisdiction brands
Some brands operate through entities in jurisdictions that are not covered by a UK or EU compensation scheme, and a brand name on its own does not reveal which one your account sits under. Where a firm lists entries across several regulators, the useful question is which entity your account agreement names, because protection follows the entity rather than the brand.
AMarkets lists an entry with MISA, the Mwali International Services Authority, as T2023284 and an entry with the Cook Islands Financial Supervisory Commission as LLC14486/2023. Amillex pairs a Mauritius Financial Services Commission entry, GB24203163, with an ASIC entry, 559321. Anzo Capital spans a Belize Financial Services Commission entry, 000331/469, a Kenya Capital Markets Authority entry, 219 and an ASIC entry, 362215. A reader comparing these against regulated UK and European firms in the CFD broker rankings is really comparing protection routes, not brand names.
The newer registers for crypto assets
Crypto firms are listed on registers that are newer than the ones behind share dealing, and the names on those registers are not interchangeable with a banking entry. Cash deposits and crypto assets are not covered by the same arrangement, so a crypto licence answers a narrower question than a deposit insurer does.
Backpack is listed with Latvijas Banka, the central bank of Latvia, under MiCA CASP 6488C2PNI17093U2YA18, a crypto asset service provider entry, and also appears in the payment services register as PSD_PI LV_FCMC!1024. Reading both tells you which of the two jobs the firm is authorised to do, which is exactly the kind of distinction a reader should insist on when any brand trades alongside more familiar instruments.
A repeatable comparison to run on any firm
Run the same checks in the same order on every firm, so the answers sit side by side. Name the regulator for each entry, then the entity your account will be under, then the register status and any warnings, then the protection route for your money, and only then the cost and account-type detail in the individual reviews. The last item is the one a review settles best; the earlier items are the ones a review cannot settle for you.
Applied to a shortlist, that order separates firms fast. Two firms holding FCA entries, such as APM Markets and ATC Brokers, are answering the same regulator question and can be compared on that basis before you look at anything else. A firm with a UK entry and an offshore entry needs the entity question answered before the cost question matters at all. The Brokers for beginners and copy trading platforms lists both become easier to use once each firm on them has been through the register check, and the Admirals review is one place to start that habit.