Head to Head · 2026
Two brokers, compared on verified data
◆ The short answer
IC Markets edges it for pure cost-focused forex trading (9.4 vs 9.2), on marginally lower all-in EUR/USD costs and faster fills in our sample. Pepperstone wins on regulation breadth and platform choice — FCA cover plus TradingView. Scalpers lean IC Markets; traders who value FCA oversight lean Pepperstone.
How we make money: 'Visit' links are affiliate links; we may earn a commission at no cost to you. It never changes the comparison — every row is decided by verified data.
Disclosure →Side by Side
| Criterion | IC Markets | Pepperstone |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial score | 9.4 / 10 | 9.2 / 10 |
| Regulators | ASIC, CySEC, FSA | FCA, ASIC, CySEC, DFSA |
| EUR/USD (all-in) | ≈ $7.00 / lot | ≈ $7.10 / lot |
| Min deposit | $200 | $0 |
| Platforms | MT4, MT5, cTrader | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView |
| Execution (avg fill) | ~35 ms | ~42 ms |
| Max leverage (retail) | 30:1 | 30:1 |
| Verified user rating | 4.8 / 5 (2,140) | 4.7 / 5 (1,680) |
| Best for | Low-cost scalping / ECN | Regulation & platform choice |
On a true all-in basis the two are within a whisker on EUR/USD — roughly $7.00 per lot at IC Markets versus $7.10 at Pepperstone in our July 2026 measurement. For most traders the cost difference is negligible; execution and platform fit matter more.
Pepperstone, narrowly: its $0 minimum deposit, TradingView integration and FCA oversight make it a gentler on-ramp.
IC Markets. Its slightly faster average fills and deep raw liquidity give scalpers a small but real edge.
FAQ
Risk warningCFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. A majority of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. Consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford the high risk of losing your money. Nothing on this site is financial advice.