How we report on money.

Finly is a Canadian fintech. We make money by sharing affiliate commissions with our members as cash rebates. That commercial model funds the team — it does not direct it. Commission rates are not visible to editorial reviewers, and they are not an input to any ranking, recommendation, or review on this site.

Everything below describes how that separation is actually implemented — not in spirit, but in workflow.

1. 01

   We work for the reader, not the issuer.

   Editorial advice, recommendations, and reviews are never shaped by what an advertiser wants said. The same scrutiny applies to a card paying us a high commission and one paying nothing at all.

2. 02

   Facts come from primary sources.

   Every numerical claim — fees, earn rates, welcome bonuses, eligibility rules — is traced back to the issuer's term sheet, disclosure document, or government / regulator filing. If a fact isn't in the source documentation, we don't print it.

3. 03

   Disclosures live in plain sight.

   Affiliate relationships, co-marketing partnerships, and sponsored placements are labelled on the page. Sponsored content lives on a clearly marked surface; it is never woven into editorial.

4. 04

   Plain language over jargon.

   Industry terms get translated. When they matter, we define them inline so a reader applying for their first credit card can keep up with one applying for their fifth.

5. 05

   Coverage breadth is intentional.

   We cover entry-level, no-fee, premium, student, business, and newcomer products with equal seriousness — even when the more commercial product would be easier to write about.

Every article — including editor-written pieces — passes through the same six-stage workflow. The fact-check stage is non-negotiable and is always handled by someone other than the writer.

Editorial reviewers do not see commission data on the products they evaluate. That separation lives in the tooling, not just the employee handbook.

When we get something wrong, we’d rather hear it from you than read it later. Reader-reported errors land in a single support queue, route directly to the editor on call, and are resolved against the original source — typically within 48 hours.

Material corrections are not silent rewrites. The article’s last-reviewed date is bumped, and a visible note explains what changed and when. Repeated errors on a topic trigger a quarterly process review — we adjust the source list, fact-check template, or workflow so the same mistake can’t reach a reader twice.