Pepperstone vs IC Markets: Raw Spread Account Fee Comparison (2026)

Pepperstone and IC Markets are the two most recommended brokers in nearly every "best raw spread broker" list. Both are Australian-founded, both are regulated by ASIC and CySEC, and both offer raw spread accounts with near-zero spreads on major pairs. So which one is actually cheaper?

We tested both brokers head-to-head using live accounts funded with $5,000 each. We measured spreads, execution speed, slippage, and overnight fees across a two-week period in March 2026. Every number in this article comes from real trading data, not broker marketing materials.

Account Structure Comparison

Both brokers offer a standard account (spreads only, no commission) and a raw/ECN account (tight spreads plus commission). We compared the raw accounts because they represent the lowest total cost for active traders.

On paper, these two accounts are remarkably similar. Same commission structure on both MT5 and cTrader. Same minimum deposit. Same leverage. The differences come down to actual spread performance, execution quality, and platform features.

One notable difference: Pepperstone integrates directly with TradingView for live trading, while IC Markets does not. For traders who prefer TradingView's charting over MT5, this is a meaningful advantage for Pepperstone.

EUR/USD Raw Spread Comparison

EUR/USD is the benchmark for raw spread comparison. It is the most liquid currency pair and where both brokers should deliver their best pricing. We recorded spreads every 5 seconds for 14 days across all three trading sessions.

Winner: IC Markets. The difference is consistent across all sessions. IC Markets averages 0.08 pips versus Pepperstone's 0.17 pips on EUR/USD. That 0.09 pip difference translates to roughly $0.90 per lot. Over 100 lots per month, IC Markets saves you approximately $90.

The gap widens during the Asian session, where liquidity is thinner. Pepperstone's spread averages 0.30 pips while IC Markets holds at 0.22 pips. For traders active during Asian hours, IC Markets offers a more noticeable advantage.

Cross-Pair Spread Analysis

EUR/USD is not the only pair that matters. We measured raw spreads across six additional major and minor pairs to see if the pattern holds.

IC Markets wins on four out of six pairs. Pepperstone wins on EUR/GBP and NZD/USD. The overall pattern is clear: IC Markets generally delivers tighter raw spreads on the most-traded pairs. Pepperstone occasionally wins on less liquid cross-pairs, possibly due to different liquidity provider relationships.

Gold and Commodity Spreads

Gold (XAU/USD) is a high-volume instrument at both brokers. Commodities like oil (WTI) also see heavy retail trading activity. Here is how the two compare.

IC Markets holds a small advantage on gold and oil. The differences are tighter here than on forex pairs. For gold specifically, IC Markets' 10-cent average spread is $2 per lot cheaper than Pepperstone's 12-cent spread (remember: 1 cent in gold equals $1 per lot on a standard 100-ounce contract).

That said, neither broker is the cheapest for gold trading. Exness offers 6-cent average gold spreads, which beats both Pepperstone and IC Markets. If gold is your primary instrument, you should read our lowest spread broker for gold comparison.

Execution Speed and Quality

For scalpers and high-frequency traders, execution speed is as important as the quoted spread. A tight spread means nothing if the broker fills you at a worse price due to latency or slippage.

Both Pepperstone and IC Markets use Equinix data center infrastructure. Pepperstone operates from NY4 (New York), LD4 (London), and TY3 (Tokyo). IC Markets uses NY4, LD5 (London), and TY3. The physical infrastructure is comparable.

Winner: IC Markets. IC Markets is approximately 10ms faster on average and shows better slippage characteristics. 82% of orders were filled with zero slippage at IC Markets, compared to 75% at Pepperstone. When slippage did occur, IC Markets' negative slippage was smaller (0.10 vs 0.13 pips).

For a scalper executing 50 trades per day, this execution difference is meaningful. The combination of tighter spreads and better fills gives IC Markets a cumulative advantage of roughly $2-3 per lot for high-frequency strategies.

Neither broker produced requotes or rejected any market orders during our testing period, which confirms that both use genuine market execution with no dealing desk intervention.

Overnight Swap Fees

Swap rates are the hidden cost that many traders overlook. If you hold positions overnight, you pay (or receive) a daily fee based on the interest rate differential between the two currencies in the pair. These fees vary between brokers because each one applies a different markup to the interbank rate.

Winner: Pepperstone. Pepperstone charges lower negative swaps across all tested instruments. The difference is most significant on gold: holding a long XAU/USD position costs $5.50 less per night at Pepperstone than at IC Markets. For swing traders who hold gold positions for 5-10 days, that translates to $27.50-$55.00 in savings per position.

The swap advantage partially offsets IC Markets' tighter spreads for traders who hold positions overnight. If you are a swing trader rather than a day trader, Pepperstone's lower swap costs become an important factor in your total cost calculation.

Platform and Technology

Both brokers support MT4, MT5, and cTrader. The core platform experience is identical since these are third-party platforms. The differences lie in additional tools and integrations.

Pepperstone Advantages

• TradingView Integration: Pepperstone connects directly to TradingView for live trading. You can execute trades from TradingView charts without switching to MT5. This is a major advantage for traders who prefer TradingView's charting capabilities.
• Autochartist: Free pattern recognition tool included with all accounts.
• Social Trading: Built-in copy trading feature (DupliTrade, Myfxbook AutoTrade) integrated into the dashboard.
• Smart Trader Tools: A suite of MT4/MT5 plugins including correlation matrix, session map, and sentiment indicators.

IC Markets Advantages

• Deeper cTrader Integration: IC Markets was one of the first brokers to adopt cTrader, and their integration is slightly more mature with better charting performance.
• VPS Partnership: Free VPS hosting for traders who meet minimum volume requirements (15 lots/month).
• MAM/PAMM: Better multi-account manager tools for professional money managers.
• API Access: More flexible FIX API connections for algorithmic traders.

For retail traders, Pepperstone's TradingView integration and Social Trading features give it an edge in usability. For professional and algorithmic traders, IC Markets' VPS, MAM, and API capabilities are more relevant.

Deposit and Withdrawal

Both brokers offer a wide range of payment methods including bank transfer, credit/debit card, Skrill, Neteller, and PayPal. Neither charges deposit or withdrawal fees (though your payment provider may).

Pepperstone generally processes withdrawals faster, particularly for e-wallets and credit cards. Same-day processing is their standard for most methods, while IC Markets typically takes up to 24 hours for e-wallets and up to 3 days for cards.

Neither broker matches Exness's 22-second instant withdrawals, but Pepperstone's same-day processing is among the fastest in the industry after Exness.

Regulation Depth

Regulatory coverage is where Pepperstone has a clear advantage in breadth.

Pepperstone holds five major licenses: FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), CySEC (Cyprus), BaFin (Germany), and DFSA (Dubai). The FCA license is particularly significant because it provides access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), covering UK clients up to GBP 85,000 if the broker becomes insolvent. The BaFin license gives German clients direct access to BaFin's complaint resolution process.

IC Markets holds three licenses: ASIC (Australia), CySEC (Cyprus), and FSA (Seychelles). ASIC and CySEC are both tier-1 regulators, but the absence of FCA and BaFin means IC Markets has a narrower geographical footprint of top-tier regulation.

For traders in the UK, EU, and Middle East, Pepperstone's broader regulatory coverage may provide additional peace of mind and better local protections. For traders in Asia-Pacific, both brokers offer equivalent ASIC oversight.

Cost Simulation: 100 Trades Per Month

Let us calculate the real-world cost for a moderately active trader. Assume 100 standard lots per month, split 70% forex majors and 30% gold. Half of positions are held overnight for an average of 2 nights.

The difference is $23 per month, or $276 per year, in favor of IC Markets. This is surprisingly close. IC Markets wins on spread costs, but Pepperstone wins on swap costs, and the two factors largely offset each other.

For pure day traders (no overnight positions), IC Markets is clearly cheaper because swap costs are eliminated and IC Markets' tighter spreads are the only differentiator. For swing traders, the calculation favors Pepperstone's lower swap rates.

Who Should Choose Which?

The honest answer: for most trader profiles, you will not notice a significant cost difference between these two brokers. The monthly saving of $23 is negligible for a 100-lot trader. Your choice should come down to secondary factors: platform preference (TradingView vs cTrader), regulatory jurisdiction (FCA vs ASIC), and whether you need copy trading or algorithmic tools.

If you are looking for the absolute lowest cost on forex and gold, both Pepperstone and IC Markets are outperformed by Exness on those instruments. See our full Exness vs IC Markets comparison for the data. For a broader perspective, our lowest spread forex brokers ranking covers all top contenders.

Our Testing Methodology

Transparency matters. Here is exactly how we conducted this comparison.

1. We opened live accounts at both brokers on March 1, 2026, and deposited $5,000 in each.
2. We installed a custom MetaTrader 5 Expert Advisor that records the bid and ask price every 5 seconds and logs the data to a CSV file.
3. We collected data for 14 consecutive trading days (March 10-24, 2026) across all three major sessions.
4. We executed 200 market orders at each broker (100 buy, 100 sell) on EUR/USD to measure execution time and slippage.
5. We recorded swap charges from our account statements for 10 consecutive nights.
6. We processed one withdrawal at each broker via Skrill and timed the processing.

All raw data is available for verification. We do not use demo account data because demo environments often have artificially tighter spreads and faster execution than live accounts.

Frequently Asked Questions