FBS vs IC Markets

IC Markets is the better overall choice than FBS for most active forex and CFD traders, particularly scalpers, algorithmic traders and anyone who wants Raw Spread pricing, cTrader or a wider professional trading setup. FBS is the better choice for traders who want to start with a very small deposit or use a Cent account.

The biggest mistake when comparing FBS vs IC Markets is treating each broker as if it offered identical conditions worldwide. It does not.

FBS and IC Markets operate through different legal entities depending on the trader's country. Regulation, leverage, minimum deposits, account types and even available platforms can therefore change by jurisdiction.

For most traders, the decision is fairly simple:

• Choose IC Markets if trading costs, Raw Spread accounts, scalping, Expert Advisors, cTrader and platform choice matter most.
• Choose FBS if you want a smaller entry deposit, a Cent account or a simpler commission-free trading setup.
• For EU retail traders, regulation and maximum forex leverage are less useful differentiators because both brokers operate CySEC-regulated entities and generally cap retail leverage at 1:30.

FBS vs IC Markets at a glance

Published trading terms change, so traders should confirm the exact account conditions shown during onboarding before depositing.

Why IC Markets wins overall

IC Markets offers both Standard and Raw Spread pricing. On its EU Raw Spread MetaTrader account, spreads start from 0.0 pips and the commission is $3.50 per standard lot per side, or $7 round turn. IC Markets states that its average EUR/USD spread on the Raw account is 0.1 pips.

The Standard account removes the separate forex commission and instead adds a spread markup, with published spreads starting from 0.8 pips.

That gives traders a meaningful choice:

Standard account: simpler spread-only pricing.

Raw Spread account: lower underlying spreads plus an explicit commission.

The Raw model is particularly relevant for scalpers, automated strategies and high-volume traders because spread becomes proportionally more important as trading frequency rises.

IC Markets explicitly positions its Raw Spread infrastructure toward day traders, scalpers and Expert Advisors.

That does not mean IC Markets is cheaper on every trade. A 0.0-pip advertised minimum is not the same thing as a 0.0-pip average spread, and commission, slippage, swaps and the instrument traded all affect total cost.

The advantage is that IC Markets gives active traders a clearer Raw pricing route and considerably more platform flexibility.

Is FBS cheaper than IC Markets?

FBS currently advertises floating spreads from 0.7 pips and no trading commission on its global core offering. Its global trading conditions also advertise deposits from $5.

For EU clients, the FBS Standard account currently starts from a 0.7-pip floating spread with a €100 initial deposit. FBS also offers an EU Cent account starting from €10 with spreads from 0.7 pips.

IC Markets EU publishes:

• Raw Spread pricing from 0.0 pips
• an average EUR/USD Raw spread of 0.1 pips
• $7 per standard lot round-turn commission on a USD MetaTrader Raw account
• Standard account spreads from 0.8 pips with no separate commission

Consider a one-standard-lot EUR/USD trade where one pip is approximately $10.

An IC Markets Raw account trading at its published 0.1-pip EUR/USD average would produce roughly $1 of spread cost plus $7 round-turn commission, or around $8 before swaps, slippage and other costs.

A broker advertising a 0.7-pip minimum spread would generate $7 of spread cost at exactly 0.7 pips, but that calculation does not establish its average real-world cost because a minimum spread is not an average.

This is why comparing “0.0 pips vs 0.7 pips” without adding commissions and actual average spreads is misleading.

Independent broker comparisons published in 2026 also tend to rate IC Markets more strongly on fees and overall forex/CFD trading, although those results should be treated as supplementary evidence rather than substituted for the conditions on your actual account.

Trading-cost verdict

FBS vs IC Markets for trading platforms

IC Markets supports MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5 and cTrader. IC Markets Global also supports connecting compatible accounts to TradingView.

That matters because these platforms support different trading workflows.

MetaTrader remains useful for Expert Advisors and the huge existing MQL ecosystem. cTrader provides depth-of-market functionality and supports algorithmic development, while IC Markets describes its cTrader Algo environment as supporting C# and Python programming.

FBS also supports MetaTrader within its broader global offering, but its current EU account proposition is centred on MetaTrader 5. The FBS EU Standard and Cent accounts are currently listed as MT5 accounts.

For someone who only wants MT5, this difference may be irrelevant.

For someone choosing a broker specifically for cTrader, algorithmic trading infrastructure or TradingView integration, IC Markets is the clear winner.

Which is better for scalping, EAs and algorithmic trading?

Three things push the comparison towards IC Markets:

1. Raw Spread accounts are available.
2. MT4, MT5 and cTrader are supported.
3. IC Markets explicitly allows scalping, hedging and automated trading on its EU trading environment.

Its cTrader infrastructure also provides depth of market, advanced order functionality and algorithmic tooling.

FBS can still be used for automated MetaTrader strategies where the relevant account supports them. The issue is not that FBS cannot support active trading. IC Markets simply has a more purpose-built proposition for this type of trader.

Winner: IC Markets.

Which broker is better for beginners?

The FBS global website currently advertises an initial deposit from $5. Within the EU entity, the FBS Cent account starts from €10 and lets traders operate using substantially smaller position units than a normal Standard account.

That is a genuine differentiator.

A Cent account does not make leveraged trading safe, but it allows a trader to practise position sizing and order execution with less nominal capital than a conventional standard-lot account requires.

IC Markets offers demo accounts and commission-free Standard accounts, so it is not inherently unsuitable for newer traders. Its proposition is simply more compelling once spread sensitivity, execution tools and platform choice become priorities.

Winner for low-capital beginners: FBS.

Winner for an experienced trader moving into higher-frequency execution: IC Markets.

FBS vs IC Markets regulation and safety

This is where many FBS vs IC Markets comparisons go wrong.

They combine every licence associated with a broker group and imply that every trader receives protection from every regulator. That is not how broker regulation works.

FBS regulation

Outside the European Union, the main FBS website is operated by FBS Markets Inc., which states that it is regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Belize under licence 4077102. The global FBS entity does not offer its services to residents of several jurisdictions, including the EU, UK and United States.

Within the European Union, FBS is represented by Tradestone Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission under CySEC licence 331/17. FBS states that this entity participates in Cyprus's Investor Compensation Fund and follows MiFID requirements.

IC Markets regulation

IC Markets Global operates through Raw Trading Ltd, regulated by the Seychelles Financial Services Authority under Securities Dealer licence SD018.

European clients can instead encounter IC Markets (EU) Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by CySEC under licence 362/18.

The practical rule is simple:

Do not choose between FBS and IC Markets based on a list of regulators shown in a comparison table. Check the company name and licence displayed in the account-opening process for your country.

For EU retail clients, the regulatory difference is relatively small at headline level because both relevant entities operate under CySEC.

Outside Europe, the comparison can be materially different.

FBS vs IC Markets leverage

FBS Global currently offers flexible forex leverage up to 1:3000. The amount available decreases at higher account equity levels and differs for other asset classes.

IC Markets Global states that forex leverage can range from 1:1 up to 1:5000 on its global offering.

Those numbers do not apply universally.

For retail clients under the European entities, both brokers generally cap leverage on major forex pairs at 1:30 in line with European retail CFD restrictions.

So an EU trader searching “FBS vs IC Markets leverage” should not compare 1:3000 with 1:5000. Neither figure describes the normal retail account available through the brokers' EU entities.

Higher leverage increases both potential gains and potential losses. It is a risk parameter, not a quality score.

Which has more markets to trade?

IC Markets EU currently advertises more than 2,850 tradable instruments across its offering.

FBS Global advertises more than 550 CFD assets.

Those headline figures should not be treated as a clean 2,850-versus-550 comparison because they come from different regulatory entities and product catalogues.

The more useful test is whether the broker offers the exact instruments you intend to trade.

If you primarily trade EUR/USD, GBP/USD and gold, thousands of additional share CFDs add little value.

If you want broad exposure across forex, equity CFDs, indices, commodities and other CFD markets from the same account, IC Markets deserves the closer look.

FBS vs IC Markets: which should you choose?

Choose IC Markets if you:

• scalp or day trade frequently
• want a Raw Spread account
• use Expert Advisors or automated strategies
• want cTrader
• want TradingView integration where supported
• care about raw pricing and explicit commission structures
• need broader platform flexibility
• expect trading costs and execution workflow to matter more as your volume increases

Choose FBS if you:

• want to deposit a very small amount
• want access to a Cent account where available
• prefer straightforward spread-based pricing
• mainly need MetaTrader rather than a broader platform ecosystem
• are learning live execution with deliberately small position sizes

Is IC Markets better than FBS?

IC Markets has the stronger combination of Raw Spread pricing, MT4, MT5, cTrader, algorithmic trading support and active-trader infrastructure.

FBS has one significant advantage: accessibility. Its low entry requirements and Cent account make it easier to begin trading with a small balance.

That makes FBS a viable choice rather than a bad broker. It simply solves a different problem.

Which has lower spreads, FBS or IC Markets?

IC Markets Raw Spread accounts start from 0.0 pips but charge commission. FBS publishes floating spreads from 0.7 pips on its current core accounts and generally incorporates its forex charge into the spread.

A proper comparison therefore uses:

total trading cost = spread + commission + financing + slippage + any conversion charges

Comparing advertised minimum spreads alone does not answer which broker will be cheaper for a particular strategy.

Is FBS or IC Markets better for scalping?

Its Raw Spread accounts, cTrader support and explicit support for scalping and automated trading make it a more natural fit for strategies where small differences in spread and execution accumulate across many trades.

Is FBS or IC Markets better for beginners?

FBS Global advertises deposits from $5, while its European Cent account currently starts from €10.

A demo account remains the lower-risk way to learn platform mechanics before trading real capital.

Final verdict: FBS or IC Markets?

For active forex and CFD trading, its Raw Spread accounts, platform selection and support for scalping, EAs and cTrader give it the stronger trading proposition.

Pick IC Markets for trading infrastructure. Pick FBS for low-capital accessibility.

For EU retail traders, the choice becomes even clearer because both brokers' European entities operate under CySEC and both limit major-pair retail leverage to around 1:30. In that situation, regulation and headline leverage largely cancel each other out, leaving trading costs, platforms, instruments and account structure as the factors that actually separate them.

Before opening either account, verify the exact legal entity, current trading conditions and regulatory protections shown for your country. Broker terms can change and CFDs involve a high risk of losing money due to leverage.