vs
Tickmill 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 | Tickmill |
FxPro |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost | $1 108🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09 | $1 554🔬 our measurementderived · 27.08–25.09 |
| Avg spread, 24 h | 0.28 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 | 1.22 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 | $6.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26 | $7.00📄 stated by the brokerfee schedule · checked 25.09.26 |
| Swap per year | $58🔬 our measurementMT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09 | $49🔬 our measurementMT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09 |
| Rejected orders | 0.9%🔬 our measurement4 790 orders · 27.08–25.09 | 0.4%🔬 our measurement4 823 orders · 27.08–25.09 |
| Slippage on releases | 1.4 pips🔬 our measurement208 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 |
Tickmill 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.
This link pays us. The figures on this page were produced by the same code and the same window as every other broker here, and where our sponsor loses, it is printed.
The trade-off, in money
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, Tickmill is $445 a year cheaper at 10 lots a month — $1 108 at Tickmill against $1 554 at FxPro. Inside those totals, Tickmill pays $330 in spread and $720 in commission, while FxPro pays $665 and $840. Swap adds $58 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 Tickmill's 0.9%, and slipped 0.8 pips on release-timed orders against 1.4. 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.
Converting that into money depends on your strategy. 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 — 0.6 pips on a release order, roughly $6 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. Both columns are printed in the same type size because the weighting is yours to apply.
Axis by axis
The same eight axes as the table, unrolled into sentences, with the winner named on each. There is no overall score: inventing one would let us bury a loss inside an average.
Spread, commission and swap added up over a year of a stated volume — the figure a spread table cannot produce.
Tickmill is ahead: $1 108 against $1 554 at FxPro, 40% 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.
Tickmill is ahead: 0.28 pips against 0.55 pips at FxPro, 101% worse. 1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09.
Spread during the three hours around the daily roll, when the banks step back and every account in this table gets worse.
Tickmill is ahead: 1.22 pips against 2.02 pips at FxPro, 66% worse. 1 s bid/ask · 27.08–25.09.
What the fee schedule says a lot costs. This one is 📄 rather than 🔬 — we read it, we did not measure it, except where a real trade confirmed it.
Tickmill is ahead: $6.00 against $7.00 at FxPro, 17% worse. 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.
FxPro is ahead: $49 against $58 at Tickmill, 18% worse. MT5 swap log · 27.08–25.09.
The share of our market orders the broker declined, with its own status code. Orders that got no execution event inside our window are our own status, not a rejection.
FxPro is ahead: 0.4% against 0.9% at Tickmill, 125% 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 1.4 pips at Tickmill, 75% worse. 214 release orders · 27.08–25.09.
A stated figure, not a measured one: what the broker says it charges to take money out.
Identical on this axis: both at $0. Nothing to choose between them here.
The entities behind these two accounts
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.
confirmed as the entity holding our account · public register
⚠️ not confirmed as the entity holding our account · public register
Each confirmed entity gets the regulator's own sentences on its broker page — compensation, leverage, close-out, negative balance — rather than our summary of them. 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
The comparison is only worth reading because both sides went through the same pipeline at the same time. Figures taken weeks apart, or on different pairs, can disagree by more than the brokers do.
Here it is EUR/USD on both sides, 2026-08-27 to 2026-09-25 continuous, on the Raw · MT5 account at Tickmill 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 order counts behind the execution axes are 4 790 orders at Tickmill and 4 823 at FxPro of which 208 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.
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
The bill on either account is per-lot cost times volume plus a yearly swap, so a comparison at one volume answers one point of a line. 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 | Tickmill | FxPro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $163 | $199 | Tickmill cheaper by $36 |
| 5 | $583 | $801 | Tickmill cheaper by $218 |
| 10 | $1 108 | $1 554 | Tickmill cheaper by $445 |
| 25 | $2 684 | $3 810 | Tickmill cheaper by $1 126 |
| 50 | $5 310 | $7 572 | Tickmill cheaper by $2 261 |
| 100 | $10 563 | $15 094 | Tickmill cheaper by $4 531 |
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
There is no crossover inside any realistic volume: Tickmill is cheaper per lot traded ($8.75 against $12.54) and the difference in annual swap, $9, is not enough to reverse it. The ranking between these two is stable across volumes, which is unusual in this table.
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 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.
The rollover penalty, priced
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. Tickmill goes from 0.28 to 1.22 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 | Tickmill | FxPro | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | $1 108 | $1 554 | Tickmill cheaper by $445 |
| 20% | $1 334 | $1 905 | Tickmill cheaper by $570 |
| 50% | $1 673 | $2 431 | Tickmill cheaper by $758 |
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 $226 a year on Tickmill 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.
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.
Where this pair sits in the population
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. Tickmill leads the whole table on annual cost; Tickmill leads the whole table on avg spread, 24 h.
| Axis | Tickmill | FxPro | Best in the table |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual cost | 1 of 10 | 7 of 10 | best in table $1 108 |
| Avg spread, 24 h | 1 of 10 | 7 of 10 | best in table 0.28 pips |
| Spread 21:00–24:00 UTC | 1 of 10 | 6 of 10 | best in table 1.22 pips |
| Commission per lot | 4 of 10 | 6 of 10 | best in table $0.00 |
| Swap per year | 4 of 10 | 2 of 10 | best in table $0 |
| Rejected orders | 4 of 9 | 1 of 9 | best in table 0.4% |
| Slippage on releases | 4 of 9 | 1 of 9 | best in table 0.8 pips |
| Withdrawal fee | 1 of 9 | 1 of 9 | best in table $0 |
Placings inside one source class · 27.08–25.09 · the full ranking is on the brokers page
The whole table is ten accounts, and the sort order on the front page is annual cost - so a reader who only wants the cheapest bill does not need this page at all.
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 Tickmill. 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 this comparison raises
Which of the two is actually cheaper?
Tickmill, by $445 a year at 10 lots a month of EUR/USD. Each broker's page breaks the bill into spread, commission and swap, so the sum can be rebuilt with your own volume.
Why compare against the broker that pays you?
Because it is the only comparison worth publishing from here: a sponsored site normally arranges never to make it. 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 Tickmill.
Is Tickmill linked anywhere on this page?
No. We have no relationship with it and will not imply one by sending you there. 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?
Mostly volume - then holding period, then the hours of the day you are active. The per-lot charge follows volume, the swap follows time held, and the spread gap between these two widens sharply in the thin hours.