I scalp small targets around scheduled events and the first minutes of London open. I am trying to compare OANDA Core vs Pepperstone Razor once rebates are in the mix.
For those who trade both, what are you seeing as the net cost per lot during news windows and in the ten minutes after? Please include spread, commission, rebate, and average slippage. Platform stability and fill time also matter for this style.
Which ends up cheaper for your actual fills, and does the answer change by symbol like EURUSD vs XAUUSD?
Pepperstone raw cheaper when news hits for me.
Test the same setup across both brokers around one event. Use a simple limit or market entry so you isolate cost. Define two windows: T minus five to T plus five minutes, and the next ten minutes after. Track spread at entry, commission, rebate, and slippage for each fill. Net cost per lot = spread value + commission − rebate + slippage. Do at least ten events to smooth variance. Also time your fill speed from click to confirmation. If your net cost and fill time are both better on one broker for your pair and size, that is your answer.
My results switch by symbol.
EURUSD: Razor with rebate was cheaper most prints. XAUUSD: costs were closer, and fills felt steadier on OANDA. I cut size during the first minute.
Razor looked cheaper on majors at CPI. OANDA felt steadier on gold. Slippage changed the result more than the rebate did.
I split orders during news for a month.
Pepperstone had tighter base spread into the print, but slippage could spike when the book thinned. OANDA widened more on the spread, yet fills were often more consistent for my size.
Net cost flipped by symbol. EURUSD favored Razor in most events. Gold was a toss up. If you scalp, size down at the release, and record every fill. Your data will show which broker holds up for your entries.