I’m trying to make a final decision between FBS and another established broker, and I want to go beyond just reading reviews. I need to understand the real cost difference when you factor in everything: spreads, commissions, slippage during peak hours, and most importantly, how much GlobeGain rebates actually reduce my effective trading cost.
I know FBS advertises tight spreads, but I want to know how that compares to, say, IC Markets or Tickmill in terms of true cost per trade. And I want to hear from people who have actually traded on both platforms.
Does one broker genuinely give you better execution during news events? Does one have noticeably faster withdrawals? Which one’s support actually responds when you need them?
I’m also trying to understand whether the rebate structure matters more than the broker’s native spreads, or if it’s a combination of both that determines your overall efficiency.
For traders who’ve tested multiple brokers, which factors actually made the biggest difference in your real trading costs?
IC Markets edges FBS on cost when spreads tighten.
Rebates matter but execution quality matters more honestly.
FBS decent. IC Markets better for scalping though.
Here’s the actual comparison:
FBS standard account: 1.5 to 2 pip spread on EUR/USD, plus GlobeGain rebates of roughly 0.3 to 0.5 pips depending on volume.
IC Markets ECN: 0.5 to 0.8 pip spread plus 0.01 dollar per 100k commission, plus similar rebate structure through GlobeGain.
Tickmill: variable spreads averaging 0.8 pips, strong rebate integration.
The real cost formula is: spread plus commission minus rebate equals true cost. IC Markets wins on raw spreads. FBS wins on simplicity if you don’t scalp heavily.
Execution quality during volatility favors IC Markets slightly due to their ECN infrastructure. But FBS execution is solid for swing traders.
My recommendation: if you’re scalping or day trading, IC Markets or Tickmill. If you’re holding positions longer, FBS costs are comparable and the interface is easier.
Test each with 5 micro lots over 2 weeks. Track your true cost. The data will show which suits your actual trading style.
I actually traded both FBS and IC Markets for a few months to test which was better for my style.
For my swing trading, FBS felt more intuitive and the costs were nearly identical when I factored in rebates. The GlobeGain cashback made up for FBS’s slightly wider spreads.
IC Markets had tighter execution, but I wasn’t scalping enough to justify switching and dealing with a new interface.
I’d say test both with small positions before committing. The difference is smaller than most people think, especially with rebates included.
Both are solid. FBS easier to use. IC Markets tighter spreads technically.
I’ve spent the last 6 months comparing these brokers carefully because I wanted to make sure I was optimizing my costs.
FBS vs IC Markets came down to my trading frequency. I scalp about 3 times per week, so the tighter spreads on IC Markets actually mattered. Over 6 months, IC Markets saved me roughly 40 to 50 dollars in true trading costs even with FBS’s decent rebates.
But here’s the key: FBS’s customer support responded faster to my questions, and their platform felt more stable during the volatile days I tested.
IC Markets has better raw execution, but FBS is more user-friendly if you’re not a professional trader.
The rebates through GlobeGain helped both platforms roughly equally, so that wasn’t the deciding factor for me. Execution quality and platform stability were.