I am trying to compare xtb with pepperstone on actual cost once rebates and slippage are counted. Quoted spreads look close, but fill quality and the rebate amount change the math.
If you have real numbers, can you share a simple snapshot like this?
Screenshots or short logs would help. Which one ends up cheaper for you, and under what conditions?
Pepperstone cheaper for me during London on majors.
Build a cost sheet per pair. Example for EURUSD 1 lot: if spread averages 0.9, commission 7, slippage 0.2 on entry and 0.2 on exit, and rebate gives back 2, then net cost is spread plus commission minus rebate plus slippage cost. Convert all to pips. Do the same on both brokers across sessions. News and Asia will skew results. Do ten trades per session to make it meaningful.
If you want a fair test, mirror the same entries. Use a small EA that sends synchronous market and limit orders to both accounts with the same size. Log the server time, quote, and fill. After a week compute median slippage and median spread. The median is better for outliers. Then subtract your rebate per lot. That gives you a clean view of net cost.
On EURUSD my net cost was similar on both.
The difference showed up on gold. Pepperstone fills were cleaner for me during London. Rebates narrowed the gap, but fills mattered more in the end.
I got lower slippage on pepperstone in London. In Asia both felt the same.
Rebates help a bit, but bad fills wipe that out fast.
I ran parallel accounts for a month. On EURUSD, pepperstone averaged tighter spreads by a touch, and slippage was smaller during London. After rebates, net cost per lot was about 0.2 pip lower there.
On indices, xtb sometimes edged it with smaller commission equivalents. If you scalp, fills decide the winner more than rebates. If you swing, the rebate difference matters more.