I’ve narrowed my choice down to two brokers: FBS and XM. Both have solid reputations, both offer MT4 and MT5, and both work with GlobeGain rebates. But I can’t figure out which one actually costs less to trade with—the numbers don’t feel straightforward.
FBS advertises tighter spreads on some instruments, but XM has a different commission structure on certain account types. Then there’s the rebate component, which changes the math again depending on which pairs I trade and how often.
I made a spreadsheet and started tracking what an actual trade would cost on each broker. For EUR/USD, during quiet market hours, FBS shows 0.8 pips while XM shows 1.0 pip. So FBS wins, right? But then I factored in GlobeGain rebates for both accounts. The rebate percentages are different depending on the broker and account type. Subtract the rebate from each, and suddenly the cost picture is less clear.
Then I realized I need to test during real trading conditions—not just quiet hours. What happens during news events? How do commissions apply? Are rebates credited the same way on both?
I want to make a real comparison, not just pick based on marketing claims. Has anyone here traded with both FBS and XM and actually calculated their true cost including rebates? Which one genuinely came out cheaper, and did the difference actually matter for your trading results?
Calculate true cost for your specific strategy. Download quotes for EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and any exotic pairs you trade. Record spreads from both brokers at the same exact timestamp during three market conditions: London open, US open, and quiet hours.
For each setup, calculate: (average spread + commission) - rebate percentage = true cost per lot.
FBS typically wins on raw spreads but XM’s rebate structure sometimes makes up the difference. The real winner depends on your volume and pair selection. If you trade mostly EUR/USD with high volume, FBS usually costs less. If you trade mixed pairs with lower volume, XM might be cheaper due to rebate calculations. Test with your actual plan, not hypothetical scenarios.
Test both on demo then compare real costs. Numbers vary by pair.
I traded with XM for a year before switching to FBS with GlobeGain rebates. The difference wasn’t huge, but it was measurable.
FBS spreads are genuinely tighter on major pairs—usually 0.8–1.0 pips versus XM’s 1.0–1.2 pips. That advantage adds up over hundreds of trades. The rebate structure is similar between both through GlobeGain, but FBS rebates seemed to process more consistently in my experience.
The real cost difference was about 15–20% monthly in my favor with FBS, mostly from tighter spreads. That’s not massive, but it compounds. Where XM was better was customer support response time and platform reliability—they just felt more polished. For cost though, FBS wins if you’re comparing apples to apples.
FBS spreads are tighter. XM support is better. Cost difference is small but FBS is cheaper per trade over time.
FBS spreads tighter. XM support feels cleaner overall.
Don’t forget account type matters hugely. FBS Standard accounts have different spreads than FBS ECN. Same with XM. If you’re comparing FBS Standard to XM Standard, that’s one calculation. FBS ECN to XM ECN is completely different. Also verify whether GlobeGain rebates apply equally to all account types on both brokers—sometimes rebates are restricted to specific account categories. That detail changes the entire cost comparison.