Lowest Spread Forex Brokers

There is no single lowest-spread broker. At the floors each broker publishes, the Exness Standard account costs about 2 USD in spread on a standard lot of a pair quoted in dollars, while Exness Raw Spread costs up to 7 USD in commission on the same lot. At FXTM and Tickmill the raw account is the cheaper one. The account decides the cost, not the broker.

Spread and commission at five brokers, from their own pages

Each column holds what one broker publishes on its own site, for the entity named in the first row. Nothing was taken from a comparison site, and a cell the broker does not publish reads Not disclosed. Read down a column before reading across: the floor and the commission belong to one account, and the account type is what they describe.

Figures verified against each broker’s own published terms on 2026-07-26. The IC Markets Raw Spread commission was re-verified on 2026-08-18 and matched. Spread floors are the lowest value a broker commits to in writing and are not averages.

Why nine cells in that table read Not disclosed

Because the brokers do not publish those numbers. Four of the five publish no EUR/USD figure at all, and two publish a floor that their own other pages contradict.

What every one of them does publish is an account-level floor, phrased as “from” a value. A floor is a claim about the best case on that account, usually on the deepest pairs in the busiest hour. It is not an average, and it is not attached to any named pair. Our page on what the spread costs per trade sets out how that quote is priced and what a quoted average leaves unsaid; this page uses the floors only to compare accounts against each other.

XM is the boundary case. Its site carries a claim of spreads starting at 0.8 pips, attached to no pair and no account type, and its commission is published for its European and UK entities rather than for XM Global Limited. Read as a floor across a whole product range the claim is fair. Read as a EUR/USD figure for one account, which is how a comparison table presents it, it is a number the broker never stated.

That is why the comparison above is drawn on accounts and entities rather than on pairs. An account and an entity are what a broker commits to in writing; a per-pair average is what somebody else measured. Spread is also only one of four charges on a position, and the costs a spread table leaves out are priced together entity by entity on the CFD cost page.

The break-even that decides raw against standard

A raw account is cheaper when the spread the standard account saves you costs more than the commission the raw account charges. That is settled on one lot, not on a monthly total.

Write it as arithmetic. A standard lot is 100,000 units of the base currency, so on a pair quoted in dollars one pip on one lot is 100,000 multiplied by 0.0001, or 10 USD. The raw account wins when the spread difference in pips, multiplied by 10 USD, is greater than the round-turn commission on that lot. Both sides are per lot, so trading ten lots multiplies each side by ten and leaves the comparison exactly where it was. The same arithmetic applied to cost at scalping trade counts turns a one dollar difference into a monthly figure.

Run it on the published floors. At FXTM, Edge starts at 1.2 pips with no commission and Advantage starts at 0.0 pips with 7 USD round turn: 12 USD against 7 USD, so Advantage is cheaper by up to 5 USD per lot. At Tickmill, Classic starts at 1.6 pips with no commission and Raw starts at 0.0 pips with 6 USD round turn: 16 USD against 6 USD, a wider margin again.

Then run it at Exness and the answer reverses. Standard starts at 0.2 pips with no commission, which is about 2 USD on a standard lot, while Raw Spread starts at 0 pips with up to 3.50 USD per side, or up to 7 USD round turn.

At the published floors the Exness Standard account is the cheaper of the two. This is why “raw accounts are for active traders” fails as advice: it describes the shape of a fee schedule rather than its size, and the size is what decides. The arithmetic also prices trading and nothing else, so it is silent on the non-trading fees a spread table leaves out, which fall due in the months when no lot is traded at all.

Two limits on that arithmetic. It compares floors against floors, so it settles the best case for each account and says nothing about a normal hour. And it uses the pip value for a dollar-quoted pair on a standard lot: change the pair or the quote currency and the left side moves while the commission usually does not.

The entity that does publish a per-pair number

Four of the five above publish nothing for an individual pair. A sixth regulated company in the same evidence set does. Equiti Securities Currencies Brokers LLC, licensed in the United Arab Emirates under category 1 licence 20200000026 and category 5 licence 20200000352, prints a figure per pair for two of its accounts.

Read the numbers below as what they are. They are described as typical spreads during the London and New York sessions, not as a floor, which makes them a different kind of claim from the from 0.0 pips figures in the table above. A typical spread can be missed in either direction; a floor is a commitment not to go under it. Neither is an average across the day, and neither is what shows on a ticket during a news release.

Figures verified against the published terms of Equiti on 2026-07-26 and re-read on 2026-09-12. Typical spreads are not floors and not averages.

The pricing splits the same way the rest of this page describes. The Premier account that shows 0 pips on EUR/USD charges 3.50 USD per side per lot, and the Standard account that shows 1.4 pips charges no commission at all. The two columns are one break-even calculation, not a ranking.

Run it with the pip value established above. On a single standard lot the Premier commission is 7 USD round turn against a 1.4 pip spread on Standard worth 14 USD, so Premier is ahead on that pair by about 7 USD. On GBP/USD the differential widens to 2 pips, or 20 USD, against a Premier cost of 2 USD of spread plus the same 7 USD of commission, so Premier moves further ahead rather than closer.

That result holds only while the typical spread behaves as published. A figure described as typical during two named sessions carries no commitment outside them, so the same comparison run at the Tokyo open, or during a scheduled release, can land anywhere. The commission side does not move, which is why a commission is the easier half of a trading cost to plan around and the spread is the half worth checking on a live account before funding one.

One more thing the figures settle. The entity matters here too: the same Equiti Standard account is published at 2.2 pips on GBP/USD by the United Arab Emirates company and at 1.8 pips by Equiti Brokerage (Seychelles) Limited, which holds Seychelles licence SD064. Same brand, same account name, a different number, because a different company published it.

The cheaper of the two is the offshore entity, which is the opposite of what most readers expect. Establish which company would hold the account before treating either figure as the price of the brand.

When a broker publishes two different numbers

Two of the five publish figures on one of their own pages that do not agree with figures on another of their own pages. Where that happens, the cell above reads Not disclosed.

IC Markets is the clearer example. Its live pricing table and its Raw account page do not give the same EUR/USD average, and its Standard account page and its account comparison table do not give the same spread floor. Both readings were taken from the broker’s own site on the same day.

Exness shows the same pattern on the commission for its Zero account, where the professional accounts page and the help centre carry different values.

An unresolved disagreement is not a rounding problem. There is no published number for that account, only two candidates, and printing either one chooses on the reader’s behalf without saying so. It also removes the fact worth knowing: the broker has not settled the number itself.

Treat the account documents as binding, treat marketing tables as illustration, and ask support in writing which figure applies to the entity your account sits under. A written answer is worth more than any figure on any comparison page, this one included. What a broker does publish without ambiguity is its entry price, set out in what brokers ask as a minimum deposit.

When a low-spread account is the wrong choice

Three readers are served badly by this comparison, and in each case the reason is that the number needed to make the choice is missing rather than unfavourable.

The first is anyone whose account would sit with an entity that does not publish its commission, as with XM Global Limited above. The cheaper half of the arithmetic is unavailable: you cannot pick the lower total cost between two accounts when one total is not disclosed, and an in-platform schedule you can only see after opening the account is not something you can compare before depositing.

The second is anyone who cannot confirm which entity would hold the account. The floors and commissions above belong to five named companies, and a broker running several regulated entities can publish different terms for each. Landing on a page from a search result tells you nothing about which entity your application will be routed to, and choosing on a figure that belongs to a different entity is worse than choosing on no figure.

The third is anyone who needs a settled number now. Where a broker publishes two values for the same account, the comparison cannot be completed until support answers in writing. If the account has to be opened today, the honest position is that this page cannot rank those brokers on cost, and no page can.

Disclosure: EasyTradeWeb may be compensated if you open an account through a link on this page. It costs you nothing and does not change what is written above.

Frequently asked questions

Settling the two cells this page cannot fill

Every figure above is what a broker committed to in writing, and nine cells stayed empty because nothing was committed. Four steps close that gap for the one account you are actually considering.

1. Get the entity in writing. Ask which company will hold the account before you deposit, then use only that company documents. Reading a disclosure page is covered in what the spread costs per trade.
2. Open a demo on that exact account type and watch one pair. Record the spread at the Asian open, during the London and New York overlap, and just after a scheduled release. Three readings beat any published average.
3. Convert both candidate accounts to money on one lot. Spread in pips multiplied by the pip value, against the round-turn commission, same pair and same size each time. The larger number loses.
4. Ask support for the figures the site does not publish, including the swap or the fee that replaces it on a swap-free account, and keep the reply. A written answer settles a cell that no comparison page can.

Risk warning

A lower entry cost does not reduce market risk. Leveraged trading can cost more than the amount deposited however tight the spread is, and 6 USD against 12 USD of entry cost is small next to a position sized wrongly. Compare cost after deciding how much risk each trade carries, never instead of deciding it.

Related articles

• What gold costs to trade at a broker
• Forex broker reviews and comparisons