Choosing a broker

How to compare mortgage brokers in Australia

Compare Australian mortgage brokers using the same evidence: authorisation, lender access, fees, process, service, reviews and post-settlement support.

Updated: 4 August 2026
Read time: 9 min read
Reviewed by: emoney broker team

Key checks before you decide

Reviewed by emoney broker team. Updated 4 August 2026. Sources are listed below.

Define one borrower scenario before comparing brokers.
Record licensing, panel, fee and service evidence on the same date.
Separate verified facts from ratings and marketing claims.
Use conditional suitability categories instead of declaring one universal winner.
Recheck the shortlist before applying because panels, people and processes can change.

In this guide8 sections

Define what the comparison is trying to solve Create a shortlist from verifiable facts Compare lender access without using panel size alone Compare remuneration and ownership transparently Test the quality of each comparison method Score service before and after lodgement Use reviews as supporting evidence Choose by borrower need, not one universal rank

Define what the comparison is trying to solve

A broker comparison becomes meaningful only after the borrower scenario is clear. A first-home buyer with a small deposit, a self-employed applicant and an existing borrower seeking a rate review may value different capabilities.

Write down the loan purpose, property type, income structure, deposit or equity, timing, document concerns and desired support. Use the same short scenario when speaking with each broker so the answers can be compared rather than collected as unrelated impressions.

Do not start by asking which broker has the largest panel or highest rating. Those facts need context. The first question is what work the borrower needs the broker to perform and which risks the comparison should expose before an application.

Area	Evidence	Why it matters
Authorisation	Current ASIC register entry	Confirms the licence or representative relationship
Comparison scope	Panel, accreditation and exclusions	Shows the boundaries of available lender comparison
Cost	Commission disclosure and direct fee quote	Makes remuneration visible
Process	Named contacts, milestones and documents	Shows how the work will be managed
Service quality	Detailed recent reviews and complaint route	Adds evidence beyond advertising
Ongoing support	Written review and contact model	Clarifies what happens after settlement

Create a shortlist from verifiable facts

Build an initial list from recommendations, professional directories, search results and businesses that genuinely serve the borrower's location and scenario. Then verify each candidate before scoring them.

Record the legal or trading name, website, contact method, current authorisation and the date checked. If the broker works under a larger licence or aggregation group, note that relationship rather than assuming every brand operates the same way.

Remove candidates that cannot be verified, do not handle the relevant loan type or will not explain their service boundaries. A shorter evidence-based shortlist is more useful than a long table filled with uncertain claims.

Check ASIC's professional registers.
Confirm the broker serves your state and borrower type.
Record who provides the credit assistance.
Date every fact likely to change.

Broker note

Compare lender access without using panel size alone

Panel size is easy to advertise but difficult to interpret. What matters is whether the broker can access lenders relevant to the borrower's circumstances and explain meaningful exclusions.

Ask how many panel lenders are accredited for the loan type being discussed. A business may publish a broad lender count while an individual broker has a narrower set of current accreditations or experience.

A smaller panel is not automatically worse, and a larger panel is not automatically comprehensive. Record whether the current bank, major lenders, non-bank lenders and any scenario-specific options can be considered, then ask how the shortlist is produced.

Which relevant lenders can you access today?
Which common lenders are outside your panel?
Which accreditations apply to my loan type?
How many lenders would realistically be investigated for this scenario?

Watch out

Compare remuneration and ownership transparently

Record how each broker is paid, whether a direct borrower fee applies and whether ownership or commercial relationships may shape the service. Ask for written disclosures rather than building the comparison from assumptions.

Lender commission is common, but the amount and direct-fee model can vary. Compare the explanation as well as the number. A broker who clearly explains payment, lender differences and the service scope provides more useful evidence than one who simply says the service is free.

If a comparison website or publisher receives referral fees, paid placement or lead revenue, that relationship should be conspicuous. The ACCC says comparator services should facilitate like-for-like comparisons, disclose commercial relationships and clearly explain who and what is compared.

Record lender-paid and borrower-paid amounts separately.
Identify ownership and referral relationships.
Do not label a commercial comparison independent without evidence.
Check whether payment changes the order or prominence of results.

Example

Test the quality of each comparison method

Ask each broker how the borrower information becomes a shortlist. The answer should cover needs, costs, policy, features, documents and timing, then explain what would change the result.

A long product list is not the same as a useful comparison. Look for a disciplined process that identifies the borrower's must-haves, checks lender eligibility and policy, compares total cost and documents the reasons behind the proposed option.

Mortgage brokers must act in the consumer's best interests when providing relevant credit assistance. The borrower should still ask for more than one option and request an explanation of why each one was included.

Which borrower priorities controlled the shortlist?
What was ruled out on policy or cost?
Which option had the lowest cost and what did it lack?
What still depends on valuation or lender assessment?

Next step

Want a broker to check this against your situation?

Share the loan goal, timing and a few key details. An emoney broker can then pick up the enquiry with the relevant context.Compare the process with emoney

Score service before and after lodgement

Broker service includes more than the first recommendation. Compare document handling, communication, application ownership, condition management, settlement support and the promised contact after settlement.

Ask whether the same broker remains involved or whether support staff manage later stages. Either model can work when roles are clear. The weakness is uncertainty about who owns the next action when a lender asks for more information or a settlement date moves.

Post-settlement review claims should also be specific. Record whether reviews are scheduled, triggered by borrower changes or left for the borrower to request. Do not award points for vague promises such as 'we always keep in touch'.

Named owner for each application stage.
Expected response and update rhythm.
Secure document method.
Specific post-settlement review process.

Watch out

Use reviews as supporting evidence

Review averages can help identify businesses worth investigating, but comparison quality improves when the reviewer reads the underlying comments, dates and business responses.

Record the platform, average rating, review count and checked date. Sample detailed reviews across different ratings and look for repeated themes about communication, clarity, timing and problem handling.

Do not copy testimonials between websites, hide negative feedback or combine ratings from different platforms without explaining the method. ACCC guidance makes the review context and any incentives or commercial relationships important to the overall impression.

Show rating and review count together.
State the platform and date checked.
Include negative themes in the research notes.
Disclose incentives and commercial relationships.

Broker note

Choose by borrower need, not one universal rank

A defensible comparison can identify different strengths without pretending one broker is suitable for every borrower. Use categories tied to evidence, such as online access, complex income experience, first-home education, ongoing review or face-to-face service.

Weight the criteria before researching the candidates so the result is not reverse-engineered around a preferred winner. Publish the method, inclusions, exclusions and checked date if the comparison becomes public.

Before applying, recheck the preferred broker's authorisation, people, lender access, fees and process. A comparison is a dated research aid, not a substitute for the broker's current disclosure or an assessment of the borrower's circumstances.

Use conditional categories with defined evidence.
Set weights before assigning scores.
Keep Emoney's ownership visible on any Emoney comparison.
Refresh facts quarterly and after material changes.

Sources used

Using a mortgage broker
ASIC MoneySmartofficial sourceChecked 4 August 2026
Professional registers search
ASICofficial sourceChecked 4 August 2026
RG 273 Mortgage brokers: Best interests duty
ASICofficial sourceChecked 4 August 2026
Guide to comparator websites for operators and suppliers
ACCCofficial sourceChecked 4 August 2026
Online reviews for products and services
ACCCofficial sourceChecked 4 August 2026

General information only

This guide is general information and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. A broker can review your circumstances before any recommendation.

Before you choose

Compare the support, costs and limits clearly.

Share what you are weighing up. A broker can explain the process, costs and questions that apply to your situation.

Compare the process with emoney Broker support