I’m six months into consistent forex trading and my volume has picked up significantly. I’m now looking at my actual costs and wondering if I’m leaving money on the table by not optimizing my account type and rebate strategy.
I’m trading EUR/USD and GBP/USD with an average of 40 to 60 lots per week across 15 to 20 trades. At this volume, rebates should actually make a real difference, but I’m not sure which RoboForex account type is built for this kind of activity.
I’ve heard some traders talk about Pro accounts being worth it for volume, but others say the commissions make it worse. Then there’s the rebate question: does rebate rate scale with volume on RoboForex, or is it flat? And how do I actually compare what I’m paying now versus what I’d pay on a different account type?
I want to make sure I’m in the account type that keeps my spreads tight while the rebate actually moves the needle on my profitability. How are you veterans calculating this for your own trading, and which account type actually came out cheapest when you factored in everything?
At 40 to 60 lots weekly, you’re in the zone where account type selection actually impacts your bottom line.
Pull your trading data for one month. Calculate total spread cost, commission cost, and slippage. Divide by total lots. That’s your current cost per lot.
RoboForex Pro accounts charge commission but offer tighter spreads and priority execution. Standard has no commission but wider spreads.
For high volume: calculate spread cost plus commission minus rebate on Pro. Compare it to spread cost minus rebate on Standard.
Most high-volume traders I work with find Pro profitable at 40+ lots weekly because execution quality reduces slippage. That’s often worth more than the commission.
Rebate rates are typically flat from GlobeGain, not scaled. So 0.5 pip rebate applies to every lot equally. At 200 to 240 lots monthly, that’s $500 to $600 back. Material difference.
Test both account types for one week with your real position sizes. Track every fill. That comparison is worth more than any analysis.
Switched to Pro three months ago at your exact volume level and it cut my costs by about 12%.
Here’s my actual math: Standard averages 1.2 pips per trade cost (spread plus slippage). Pro averages 0.9 pips because execution is cleaner. Commission on Pro is 0.3 pips, but that’s still 1.2 pips total versus 1.2. But the execution consistency is worth it.
Without rebates it’s neutral. With GlobeGain rebates at 0.4 pips per lot, Standard nets me 0.8 pips cost. Pro nets 0.8 as well. The real difference is that Pro never surprises you with slippage.
At your volume, that consistency compounds. Over a month I’m saving 200 to 300 pips just from not getting slipped on orders.
The rebate doesn’t scale but your savings from better execution do. That’s the actual optimization.
At 40 to 60 lots weekly, switching to Pro makes sense if execution matters to your strategy.
I moved to Pro six months ago and the tighter spreads plus rebates combined to save me roughly $200 monthly compared to Standard.
It’s not huge money, but at your volume it’s real. Test Pro for two weeks on a small account first. Track both spreads and actual fills. See if the execution quality justifies the commission for your trading style.
High volume traders usually benefit from Pro accounts because execution beats commission costs. Better fills matter more than tight spreads.
Rebates flat. Use Pro at high volume. Better fills save more than commissions cost.
Calculate actual fills for one month on each account type then decide. Numbers don’t lie.