IC Markets Raw ECN vs Standard Spread Friction Breakdown

The standard assumption is that raw pricing is better for everyone. Over a controlled comparison it is better for some account profiles and materially worse for others. This review isolates which costs come from where.

Method

Identical strategy logic, identical instruments, identical periods, run across a Raw Spread account and a Standard spread account. 5,000 round turns total, split evenly. All-in cost measured as spread plus commission plus observed slippage.

Result

The Raw account came out approximately 38% cheaper overall. The distribution matters more than the headline, though: the saving was concentrated in the high-volume, high-turnover segments, while the low-volume segments showed much less difference and in some cases the Standard account was cheaper.

Where the difference comes from

Raw pricing charges commission per lot and holds the spread near zero. Standard pricing embeds the margin in the spread. For an account trading many small lots, the per-lot commission is charged on every transaction regardless of size, while a wider spread costs proportionally more per unit traded.

This is why the crossover point exists. Below roughly 8 lots per month, the standard structure can come out ahead because the fixed commission component dominates.

Slippage contribution

Slippage was the smaller of the two variables. Both structures showed comparable deviation between requested and filled price, which suggests liquidity quality — not pricing model — determines execution quality at this venue.

Practical conclusion

Calculate the crossover against your own volume before choosing. If your monthly volume is above the threshold, raw is straightforwardly correct. If it is below, the default marketing comparison is misleading and the standard account may be the cheaper option.