vs
OctaFX vs FxPro
One instrument and one window, measured on accounts we hold ourselves. Green marks the better number on that row, not the better broker.
EUR/USD · 27.08–25.09 · profile 10 lots a month
| Axis | OctaFX |
FxPro |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost | $1 560🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09 | $1 554🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09 |
| Avg spread, 24 h | 1.30 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 | 2.90 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 | $0.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26 | $7.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26 |
| Swap per year | $0🔬 our measurementswap-free account · 27.08–25.09 | $49🔬 our measurementMT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09 |
| Rejected orders | 2.1%🔬 our measurement4 744 orders · 27.08–25.09 | 0.4%🔬 our measurement4 823 orders · 27.08–25.09 |
| Slippage on releases | 2.6 pips🔬 our measurement201 release orders · 27.08–25.09 | 0.8 pips🔬 our measurement214 release orders · 27.08–25.09 |
| Withdrawal fee | no datafee schedule not published | $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 |
OctaFX 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.
A commission is paid to us on accounts opened here. The method behind every number is published precisely so that the commission can be weighed against it.
The trade-off, in money
Colour makes the table quick to scan and easy to over-read. The axes are not commensurable — one of them is a bill in dollars, another is a fraction of a pip on a news order — so counting green cells proves nothing.
On annual cost of ownership, FxPro is $6 a year cheaper at 10 lots a month — $1 560 at OctaFX against $1 554 at FxPro. Inside those totals, OctaFX pays $1 560 in spread and $0 in commission, while FxPro pays $665 and $840. Swap adds $0 and $49 respectively, and that line moves with how long positions stay open rather than with how often they are opened.
On execution the order reverses. FxPro rejected 0.4% of our orders against OctaFX's 2.1%, and slipped 0.8 pips on release-timed orders against 2.6. Those are the axes nobody puts in a comparison table, because they cannot be read off a website — they require sending thousands of real orders and recording what came back.
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 — 1.8 pips on a release order, roughly $18 per lot — is charged every time one is placed into that window.
Neither account is “better”. A high-volume day trader who is flat overnight should weight the commission and the rollover spread; somebody holding positions through news should weight slippage and rejects, where the cheaper account here is not necessarily the stronger one. Neither column is given more room than the other, because choosing between them is not our job.
The eight axes, one at a time
Below, the eight axes one at a time: what each one measures and which of the two accounts came out ahead. Nothing is weighted into a total, because the weighting is the part that depends on you.
The whole bill for a year at the profile printed above. It exists because the two account models on this site hide their cost in different places.
FxPro is ahead: $1 554 against $1 560 at OctaFX, 0% worse. derived · 27.08–25.09.
Bid-ask distance, sampled each second and averaged. On a raw account it sits near zero much of the time and cannot be read alone.
FxPro is ahead: 0.55 pips against 1.30 pips at OctaFX, 135% worse. 1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09.
The thin-liquidity window, measured separately because an average across the day hides it entirely.
FxPro is ahead: 2.02 pips against 2.90 pips at OctaFX, 44% worse. 1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09.
The per-lot charge from the broker's published schedule, verified against a real fill where we hold one. Stated by the broker, and marked as such.
OctaFX is ahead: $0.00 against $7.00 at FxPro. fee schedule · checked 25.09.26.
A year of overnight financing on the measured profile. It scales with time in the market rather than with the number of trades.
OctaFX is ahead: $0 against $49 at FxPro. swap-free account · 27.08–25.09.
Declined orders as a share of all orders sent. Measured by sending thousands of them, which is the only way this number can be obtained from outside.
FxPro is ahead: 0.4% against 2.1% at OctaFX, 425% worse. 4 823 orders · 27.08–25.09.
Where the fill landed against the request, on orders aimed deliberately at news releases — the minutes in which execution quality actually differs.
FxPro is ahead: 0.8 pips against 2.6 pips at OctaFX, 225% worse. 214 release orders · 27.08–25.09.
The withdrawal fee as published. The withdrawal *time* is absent from this site because measuring it honestly means moving our own money.
Not comparable: OctaFX has no figure here — fee schedule not published. The cell stays empty rather than being filled with the broker's own claim.
Which companies these accounts actually sit with
An account is measured; a company is regulated. 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.
not established — no account opened yet. A brand can hold a European licence and an offshore one at once, and the client protections are not comparable, so we do not guess which one holds an account.
⚠️ not confirmed as the entity holding our account · public register
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 we cannot establish the entity we say so rather than guessing, and the figures remain a record of the account itself.
The measurement behind this pairing
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 Standard · MT5 account at OctaFX 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.
The execution samples behind this pairing are 4 744 orders at OctaFX and 4 823 at FxPro of which 201 and 214 respectively were timed into the minutes around scheduled releases. The size of the sample is part of the claim — a tenth of a per cent on a few thousand orders is a signal; on a hundred it is noise.
The narrowness is deliberate but real: one pair, one month, one account type each. Spreads on less liquid instruments diverge much further between brokers than they do on EUR/USD, and nothing here predicts the next window. Which is the reason every figure on this site carries its own dates.
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.
| Lots a month | OctaFX | FxPro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $156 | $199 | OctaFX cheaper by $43 |
| 5 | $780 | $801 | OctaFX cheaper by $21 |
| 10 | $1 560 | $1 554 | FxPro cheaper by $6 |
| 25 | $3 900 | $3 810 | FxPro cheaper by $90 |
| 50 | $7 800 | $7 572 | FxPro cheaper by $228 |
| 100 | $15 600 | $15 094 | FxPro cheaper by $506 |
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 8.8 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, OctaFX costs $13.00 against FxPro's $12.54, while the yearly swap differs by $49 in the other direction. That is the whole mechanism: one account is cheaper to use, the other is cheaper to keep.
Two cautions about reading this table. It assumes the measured spread holds at your volume, which is reasonable for retail size and stops being reasonable well before institutional size. And it assumes you trade in the hours we measured: on both accounts the rollover spread is a multiple of the daytime figure, so a strategy living in those minutes pays a bill this table understates.
What the thin hours cost, in money
The annual figures above use each account average across all hours. Nobody trades all hours, and the thin ones are much more expensive than the rest. OctaFX goes from 1.30 to 2.90 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.
| Volume traded in 21:00–24:00 UTC | OctaFX | FxPro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | $1 560 | $1 554 | FxPro cheaper by $6 |
| 20% | $1 944 | $1 905 | FxPro cheaper by $39 |
| 50% | $2 520 | $2 431 | FxPro cheaper by $89 |
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 $384 a year on OctaFX and $351 on FxPro — OctaFX carries the heavier one. That is the part of a broker comparison that never appears in a quoted figure.
Two caveats. The blend assumes the rest of your volume behaves like our all-hours average, and it assumes the rollover mean holds on the days it matters - around a major release it can be far worse than any monthly mean.
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. OctaFX leads the whole table on commission per lot; OctaFX leads the whole table on swap per year.
| Axis | OctaFX | FxPro | Best in the table |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual cost | 8 of 10 | 7 of 10 | best in table $1 108 |
| Avg spread, 24 h | 8 of 10 | 7 of 10 | best in table 0.28 pips |
| Spread 21:00–24:00 UTC | 9 of 10 | 6 of 10 | best in table 1.22 pips |
| Commission per lot | 1 of 10 | 6 of 10 | best in table $0.00 |
| Swap per year | 1 of 10 | 2 of 10 | best in table $0 |
| Rejected orders | 9 of 9 | 1 of 9 | best in table 0.4% |
| Slippage on releases | 9 of 9 | 1 of 9 | best in table 0.8 pips |
Placings inside one source class · 27.08–25.09 · the full ranking is on the brokers page
If the only question is which account bills least, the front page answers it in one sort and this comparison is unnecessary.
What this pairing does not tell you
It is not a recommendation, and it is not a verdict on either firm. It is a record of what two accounts did on one instrument during one stated window, published by a desk that earns a commission if a reader opens an account at FxPro and nothing at all if they open one at OctaFX. The method is published in detail for exactly that reason - the incentive here runs one way, and checkability is the only answer to it.
Withdrawal time, support quality, platform stability under load, the behaviour of a swap-free account over months, and what either firm does when a client disputes a fill are all absent — some because we have not measured them, some because they cannot be measured from outside. “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 OctaFX against FxPro
Which of the two is actually cheaper?
FxPro, by $6 a year at 10 lots a month of EUR/USD. The components are printed on each broker's own page, so the sum can be redone at your volume.
Why compare against the broker that pays you?
Because that is the comparison a reader needs and the one a sponsored site avoids. FxPro pays us a commission on accounts opened through our link, so every page here puts it against another broker on all eight axes and leaves the loss where it falls. On cost it currently loses to OctaFX.
Is OctaFX linked anywhere on this page?
No. There is no commercial relationship to declare, and a link would invent one. The register entry is linked where we have one; the single paid link on the site is marked as paid.
What would change this comparison?
Three things: how much you trade, how long you hold, and when your orders go in. The per-lot charge follows volume, the swap follows time held, and the spread gap between these two widens sharply in the thin hours.