I’ve been trying to figure out if XM is actually as expensive as people claim, and I realized I was only looking at spreads. That’s not the full picture at all.
I started tracking my actual costs on XM - spreads, commissions, everything. Then I looked at what I was getting back through GlobeGain rebates. When I factored in the cashback, the total cost per lot came down way more than I expected.
But here’s what got me curious: if rebates can change the math that much, doesn’t that mean comparing brokers without cashback data is pretty misleading? Like, a broker that looks expensive on paper might actually be cheaper when you include rebates.
I’m wondering if anyone else has done this calculation and compared XM to another broker after accounting for rebates. Does the ranking actually change when you do a true cost comparison instead of just looking at spreads?
Yes it changes everything. Spread comparison alone is useless.
Tested XM versus FxPro with rebates included. FxPro won.
You’re on the right track. Most traders compare only spreads and miss half the cost picture. When you factor in rebates, execution quality, and slippage, the ranking shifts completely. I’ve seen traders switch from XM to lower-spread brokers only to find their true costs increased because of poor execution. The GlobeGain rebate data helps level that field, but you still need to track your actual slippage over 50+ trades to get the real answer. XM’s rebates are competitive, but platform stability during news events costs more than any spread advantage.
I did exactly this comparison last month. When I added up spreads plus rebates, XM came out cheaper than I thought for my trading style.
The thing is, different pairs have different spreads, so it matters which ones you trade. EUR/USD on XM stays tight even with rebates factored in.
But for exotic pairs, the rebate made a bigger difference to my bottom line.
Rebates definitely matter but execution matters more. Have compared three brokers now.
This is exactly why I switched my tracking system two years ago. Started tracking total cost instead of just spreads.
On XM, my EUR/USD trades averaged 1.1 pips all-in after rebates. Sounds tight until you realize I was getting slipped 2-3 pips on every entry during London open. The rebate couldn’t fix the execution problem.
So yes, rebates reveal real costs, but they also expose which brokers have execution issues. If a broker’s spreads look great but your actual fills are terrible, the rebate won’t save you.