I’ve been trying to figure out something that’s been bugging me for a while now. When I’m comparing brokers, everyone throws around spread numbers like they’re the only thing that matters. But I realized I was missing a huge part of the picture.
Last month I started tracking my actual costs on XM. The spreads looked decent on paper, but when I factored in the GlobeGain rebates I was getting back, the math changed completely. I was surprised how much the rebates actually reduced what I was really paying per trade.
Then I got curious about whether this changes how I should be evaluating other brokers. Like, is a broker with slightly higher spreads and better rebate rates actually cheaper than one with tight spreads but no cashback program? And more importantly, how do you even calculate your true cost when you’re trying to decide between two brokers?
I started doing some basic math on a few setups, and it hit me that most traders probably aren’t doing this calculation at all. They just pick a broker based on headlines or marketing claims.
So here’s what I’m wondering: how do you guys actually measure your real trading costs when reviewing a broker? Do you factor rebates into your decision, or do you focus on spreads first and treat rebates as a bonus?