I’m trying to figure out if FBS spreads are actually competitive compared to other brokers I’m considering. On the surface, FBS advertises 1.2 pips on EUR/USD, but when I look at competitors, some offer 0.8 or even 0.6 pips. The difference seems significant until I factor in rebates.
That’s where I get confused. How much do GlobeGain rebates actually close that gap? Is FBS still more expensive overall, or do the rebates make it comparable?
I want to do a honest, data-driven comparison without just guessing. I know rebates are important, but so is execution quality and platform reliability. If FBS is cheaper on paper but their execution is worse, that defeats the purpose.
Can someone walk me through how you actually compare spreads between brokers when rebates are part of the equation? And have you actually tested FBS against a leading competitor with real trading so you know the true cost difference?
FBS spreads higher but rebates close gap significantly.
Let me give you a real comparison I did:
FBS EUR/USD: 1.2 pips spread, 0.3 pip GlobeGain rebate = 0.9 pip real cost.
IC Markets EUR/USD: 0.8 pips spread, no rebate = 0.8 pip cost.
IC Markets is still 0.1 pips cheaper per trade. But here’s the catch: IC Markets charges a commission of $3.50 per lot on their raw spread accounts. Once you add that, IC Markets costs 0.85 pips equivalent.
Now they’re nearly the same. The difference matters only if you’re doing 500+ trades monthly. For average traders, FBS is cheaper once you factor everything in.
The real question is execution quality. A 0.1 pip difference is meaningless if IC Markets slips you 0.5 pips on entry.
I switched from another broker to FBS about six months ago exactly to test this. I was paying slightly less per trade on paper, but my actual trading results were worse because of slippage.
With FBS plus rebates, my total costs went down and my execution got more predictable. That combination matters more than just looking at advertised spreads.
I track both now—actual spread paid and real cost including rebates. It’s much clearer than just comparing the marketing numbers.
Test both brokers with real trades. Numbers on website different from reality.
I actually did a detailed comparison between FBS and Pepperstone because they’re priced differently:
FBS: avg 1.3 pips EUR/USD with 0.3 rebate = 1.0 cost
Pepperstone: 0.7 pips no rebate = 0.7 cost
Pepperstone looks cheaper on paper, right? But my actual trading costs with Pepperstone ended up 15% higher because slippage was worse during my trading hours. FBS execution was tighter.
So the spreadsheet comparison meant little. Real trading revealed that FBS was actually better for my strategy despite the higher advertised spread. Once you add rebates, the math gets even better.
Never trust advertised spreads alone. Trade both with real money on small positions and track your actual costs.
Here’s the methodology: open demo accounts on both, trade identically for two weeks, then compare your actual filled prices to the market price at entry. That shows real execution quality.
Then layer in rebates and spreads. Calculate total cost per lot. That’s your actual answer, not marketing claims.
FBS often looks better when you do this properly because execution is cleaner than the advertised spread suggests.
The thing I didn’t expect is that FBS rebates actually matter more than I thought. When I calculated my yearly costs including rebates, I was paying noticeably less on FBS than my previous broker despite the higher spread.
It changed my perspective on whether a slightly tighter spread is worth switching for, especially when FBS execution was solid.
FBS competitive after rebates included. Costs similar to tighter spreads.
The honest answer: FBS spreads are slightly wider, but once you factor in rebates and realistic execution, they’re genuinely competitive.
I’ve tested enough brokers to know that a tighter advertised spread often means worse execution—brokers compensate by slipping you. FBS doesn’t do that as badly.
For most traders, FBS offers better value than many competitors when you calculate real costs. That’s not marketing—that’s what my actual trading data shows.