I’ve been scaling up my trading volume for the last few months, and what worked when I was trading 5-10 lots per day doesn’t work the same when I’m pushing 50-100 lots per day.
With higher volume, the small differences between brokers become real differences. A 0.1 pip difference in average cost per lot adds up to real money. Platform stability matters more. Execution speed matters more.
I’ve been using IC Markets, but I started looking at competitors like FP Markets and Pepperstone because I’m curious if someone else might give me better conditions at higher volumes.
The thing is, comparing them fairly should include rebates, not just spreads. With GlobeGain rebates, I can see my actual cost. But I realized I haven’t done a proper side-by-side comparison where I account for everything: spread, commission, rebate, execution quality, and platform stability under load.
So here’s what I’m trying to figure out: if you’re trading active volume, how do you actually measure which broker is more profitable? Do you just compare spreads or rebates? Or is there something else that matters more when you’re putting through serious volume?
For active trading volume, this is the comparison that actually matters:
True cost per lot: (spread + commission) averaged over 50 trades minus rebate. Not advertised spread. Your actual average.
Execution quality: how many of your trades get filled at or better than mid-market price. If IC Markets slips you 0.3 pips on average and FP Markets slips you 0.1 pips, that 0.2 pip difference on 50 lots per day compounds.
Platform reliability under load. I’ve seen brokers’ platforms slow down when volume spikes. Ice Markets is usually stable, but test it yourself with real positions.
Withdrawal efficiency. With active volume you might be withdrawing and redepositing. Time delays matter. IC Markets handles this smoothly.
Here’s the formula: track 100 round-trip trades on each broker. Record your average spread, your average slippage, your commission, your rebate. Calculate net cost per lot. The broker with the lowest net cost wins—if platform reliability is equal. If platform stability differs, factor that into your decision heavily.
Usually the difference is 1-3 pips per round trip between competitors. That’s $100-300 per lot difference on 100 lots. Real money at that volume.
Been doing 50-100 lots daily for about nine months now. Tested IC Markets, FP Markets, and Pepperstone.
IC Markets’ spreads are competitive. Platform speed is solid. But Pepperstone felt slightly faster on order execution, which mattered for my scalping.
However, FP Markets’ rebate through GlobeGain was slightly better on my main pairs. Added up to maybe $30-50 more per month than IC Markets.
After three months comparing, I split my volume: 60% on FP Markets because of rebate optimization, 40% on IC Markets because the execution is reliable.
The point: at active volume, you should test two brokers for a full month with real money. Track your costs. Choose based on actual performance, not marketing. The $50-100 difference per month you might save is worth the testing time.
I’m also scaling up volume and this is helpful to think through.
I haven’t done a full comparison yet, but I’ve been tracking my IC Markets costs real carefully. My average spread is around 1.1 pips plus 0.35 pips commission. Rebate brings it down to about 1.2 pips total cost per round trip.
Want to test Pepperstone or FP Markets but haven’t yet. Do you think it’s worth the time? Or should I just stay with IC Markets since I already know how it performs?
Track 100 trades on each broker. See which costs less. Move your volume there.
Compare real costs not advertised spreads.
Test both for one month. Math decides.