vs

IC Markets vs FxPro

Identical instrument, identical window, our own accounts on both sides. Colour marks the stronger figure per axis and nothing more.

EUR/USD · 27.08–25.09 · profile 10 lots a month

Axis	IC Markets	FxPro
Annual cost	$1 252🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09	$1 554🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09
Avg spread, 24 h	0.29 pips🔬 our measurement1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09	0.55 pips🔬 our measurement1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09
Spread 21:00–24:00 UTC	1.40 pips🔬 our measurement1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09	2.02 pips🔬 our measurement1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09
Commission per lot	$7.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26	$7.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26
Swap per year	$64🔬 our measurementMT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09	$49🔬 our measurementMT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09
Rejected orders	1.2%🔬 our measurement4 812 orders · 27.08–25.09	0.4%🔬 our measurement4 823 orders · 27.08–25.09
Slippage on releases	1.9 pips🔬 our measurement212 release orders · 27.08–25.09	0.8 pips🔬 our measurement214 release orders · 27.08–25.09
Withdrawal fee	$0📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26	$0📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26
Withdrawal time	no datanot measured in this release	no datanot measured in this release
Support response	no datanot measured · see methodology	no datanot measured · see methodology

IC Markets is measured here and named in full. It is not linked — we have no commercial relationship with it, and we are not going to pretend otherwise by sending you there.

What the difference is worth

The table above is colour-coded by axis, which makes it easy to read and easy to misread: eight green cells on one side do not mean that side is cheaper or better, because the axes are not worth the same amount of money.

On annual cost of ownership, IC Markets is $302 a year cheaper at 10 lots a month — $1 252 at IC Markets against $1 554 at FxPro. Inside those totals, IC Markets pays $348 in spread and $840 in commission, while FxPro pays $665 and $840. Swap adds $64 and $49 respectively, and that line moves with how long positions stay open rather than with how often they are opened.

Execution tells a different story from cost. FxPro rejected 0.4% of our orders against IC Markets's 1.2%, and slipped 0.8 pips on release-timed orders against 1.9. Neither figure can be looked up anywhere: producing them means sending thousands of real orders and keeping the broker's own status for each one.

What it costs you depends on when your orders go in. A rejected order in a quiet hour costs a retry; a rejected order in the seconds after a rate decision, when the price has already moved, can cost more than a year of the spread difference above. The difference in slippage between these two accounts — 1.1 pips on a release order, roughly $11 per lot — is charged every time one is placed into that window.

There is no winner on this page, and that is not diplomacy. The weighting that decides it — volume against holding period against news exposure — is a property of your trading, not of the brokers. Both columns are printed in the same type size because the weighting is yours to apply.

Each axis, and who is ahead on it

One axis at a time, with the point of the axis stated before the numbers. No score is computed from them — a composite is exactly where a sponsored comparison would cheat.

Who the two of them are

Measurements describe an account; protections belong to a legal entity. Those are different objects, and the difference is the most consequential thing on a page like this: two clients of the same brand, onboarded through different entities, can have identical platforms, identical spreads and materially different protection if the firm fails.

Where an entity is confirmed, the broker's own page carries what that licence obliges the firm to do — the compensation ceiling, the leverage cap, the margin close-out and negative balance protection — quoted from the regulator's rule rather than summarised. Where it is not confirmed, that section says so, and the figures here stand on their own as a record of the account we opened.

How this pair was measured

One codebase, one window, one instrument, both accounts. Most contradictions between published broker comparisons dissolve the moment you check whether the two figures were taken in the same month on the same pair.

Here it is EUR/USD on both sides, 2026-08-27 to 2026-09-25 continuous, on the Raw Spread · MT5 account at IC Markets against the Raw+ · MT5 account at FxPro — both opened through the ordinary retail sign-up, both running on the broker's own MetaTrader 5 build on hardware that does not sleep.

Execution here rests on 4 812 orders at IC Markets and 4 823 at FxPro of which 212 and 214 respectively were timed into the minutes around scheduled releases. Those counts matter: a difference of a few tenths of a per cent in rejections means nothing on a hundred orders and quite a lot on several thousand.

It is one instrument: EUR/USD is the most liquid pair in the market, and a broker that looks tight here can be much wider on a cross or a metal, where its own margin is less exposed. And it is one window: a month of measurement is a month, not a permanent property of either firm. Hence the window printed beside every number rather than declared once in small print.

The same comparison at six volumes

Each account costs something per lot and something per year, which makes the annual bill a straight line - and two straight lines cross exactly once. Our headline profile — 10 lots a month — is one point on it, and a reader who trades a tenth or ten times that is reading the wrong point. Here is the same arithmetic at six volumes, with our profile marked.

Spread × $10 per pip per lot, plus commission per lot, plus a year of swap · 27.08–25.09 · the swap line does not scale with volume, which is what makes the lines cross at all

The two lines cross at about 0.5 lots a month. Below that volume the account with the smaller fixed cost wins; above it the one with the smaller per-lot cost does. Per lot traded, IC Markets costs $9.90 against FxPro's $12.54, while the yearly swap differs by $15 in the other direction. That is the whole mechanism: one account is cheaper to use, the other is cheaper to keep.

Two limits. The sum assumes our measured spread applies at your size — fine for retail volume, wrong by the time anyone is trading institutional size. And it is an average over all hours: a strategy that lives in the thin hours either side of midnight UTC pays a materially larger bill than this.

Trading through the roll: what it adds to the bill

Every account in this table widens in the hours either side of midnight UTC, and the headline bill assumes you trade in the window average. IC Markets goes from 0.29 to 1.40 pips in that window; FxPro from 0.55 to 2.02. Below is the same annual sum with a share of the volume moved into those hours.

Spread blended between the window mean and the rollover mean in the stated proportion · commission and swap unchanged · 10 lots a month

At a fifth of the volume in the thin hours, the penalty is $266 a year on IC Markets and $351 on FxPro — FxPro carries the heavier one. It is also the component most sensitive to automation: a strategy that does not know what time it is pays it in full.

This is a blend, not a simulation: your remaining volume is assumed to look like our average, and a single bad night around a release can cost more than the whole annual penalty above.

Both of them against the rest of the table

Comparing two accounts with each other says nothing about whether either is any good. Both can be mid-table. So here are the same two accounts placed against every account we measure, axis by axis. FxPro leads the whole table on rejected orders; FxPro leads the whole table on slippage on releases.

Placings inside one source class · 27.08–25.09 · the full ranking is on the brokers page

Reading the table in full is the better route for anybody choosing from scratch; a pairing is for a reader already weighing these two.

The limits of this comparison

Nothing here recommends either broker. It is a measurement of two accounts in one window, written by a desk with a commercial interest in exactly one of them — FxPro pays us, IC Markets does not. That is why the method is written out rather than summarised: a reader has to be able to find the places we could have cheated.

Plenty that matters is missing: how fast money comes out, what support does at three in the morning, how the platform behaves in a real panic, and how either firm handles a disputed fill. Some of that we have not measured; some of it cannot be measured from a retail account at all. “Which broker is better” is a much larger claim than anything on this page, and it is not one a measurement can settle.

Questions about IC Markets against FxPro