I’m running a couple of EAs on RoboForex and trying to settle on the right account type. On small live tests, I see different slippage and partial fills between account types, which changes the net cost even after cashback. During London open, my mean reversion bot gets tighter entries on ECN, but commission adds up. Standard looks smoother some hours, but the spread changes the exit math.
If you run EAs, which account type gave you the most stable fills and the lowest net cost over a full month? Please include symbol, order type, average slippage, VPS ping, and account size if you can.
ECN with VPS under 20ms improved my EA fills.
For EA choice, run a forward test with fixed rules for one month per account type. Track average spread, commission, rebate credit, order type, and slippage by session. Convert commission and rebate to pips so the totals are comparable across pairs. Test market and limit entries because the slippage profile differs. Keep VPS latency below 30 ms and lock your lot size to avoid skew. Score each account by net cost per lot and by fill consistency. If ECN shows lower slippage during London while Standard is better in Asia, split by session.
My EA needed consistent fills more than tiny spread.
ECN plus a close VPS beat Standard most days, even after commission, because slippage was smaller on entries.
My grid EA ran cleaner on ECN during London. After rebates the extra commission was fine because slippage stayed lower.
I tested a scalping EA and a breakout EA for four weeks.
ECN reduced slippage by about 0.2 to 0.3 pip per trade. After cashback the commission gap shrank, so ECN ended cheaper overall for the scalper. Standard did fine on the breakout with limit orders outside busy hours.
I use a cent account for burn in, then go ECN live for the scalper and keep Standard for quieter sessions.