Affiliate disclosure: Brokelio may receive a commission linked to the activity of clients registered through this link, under the Exness partner programme.
Exness vs FP Markets: we favour Exness for account-pricing choice and documentation about stable spreads. FP Markets still deserves a precise comparison: its published Raw commission does not make it automatically more expensive. We reviewed the Swiss English pages to which its site redirected us; these do not guarantee terms for every customer.
FP Markets links may redirect to a different regional offer. This table reflects the en-ch catalogue checked on 9 October 2026; a redirect to fpmarkets.eu does not establish that those conditions apply to another entity. Confirm the catalogue and contract offered to your residence.
Exness vs FP Markets: published terms
| Criterion | Exness | FP Markets catalogue reviewed |
|---|---|---|
| No trading commission | Standard and Pro | Standard |
| Commission account | Raw Spread and Zero | Raw |
| Standard minimum spread | From 0.2 pips | From 1.0 pips |
| Pro minimum spread | From 0.1 pips | Direct equivalent not established |
| Raw minimum spread | From 0.0 pips | From 0.0 pips |
| Raw commission | Up to USD 3.50/lot/side on most instruments | Advertised USD 3/lot/side |
| Swap-free | Conditional status and instruments | Islamic option with admin charges |
| FP platform choice | Check your Exness account separately | MT4, MT5, cTrader; TradingView on Raw |
Sources: FP Standard and Raw and Exness Raw Spread. These minima are not observed averages for a matching instrument.
Why minimum spreads are insufficient
The published Exness Standard minimum is lower than FP Standard’s in this catalogue comparison. That is a useful reason to examine Exness, but does not establish lower costs on every order. Record spreads for the same contract at comparable times.
Conversely, FP’s USD 3 per side makes USD 6 round trip per lot where applicable. An Exness USD 3.50 per-side rate makes USD 7. That is a USD 1 difference before spread and holding costs. We do not hide this possible commission advantage for FP; compare it with the other cost components.
Holding charges: check the actual exemption
The FP Islamic-account page includes administration charges and instrument-specific grace periods. Exness also has swap-free qualification and possible administration fees. Establish an Exness benefit from actual account terms, not the account label alone.
A trader closing before rollover may put more weight on spread and commission. Someone holding longer must add holding charges. This comparison selects neither markets nor holding periods; it gives a framework for your own use.
Advantages and limitations
Exness: commission-free Standard and Pro, separate Raw and Zero structures, and a documented stable-spread policy. Check regional professional funding, symbol fees and overnight terms.
FP Markets: published USD 3 per-side Raw commission and platform choice in the reviewed catalogue. Check entity-specific availability and Islamic-account admin charges. Platform compatibility can matter more than a minimum spread.
Why choose Exness to plan your trading costs?
Exness offers several pricing structures within one broker. Standard uses spread-based pricing without a separate trading commission; Raw Spread separates the spread and commission. This range helps match an account to trading frequency and volume. See the Standard and Raw Spread specifications.
Stable spreads on covered instruments help plan entry costs. High-volatility periods are an exception under Exness’s spread policy.
For overnight positions, swap-free status offers a cost benefit on eligible instruments. Check account eligibility and any applicable administrative fees when calculating holding costs.
Sources and method
Official sources checked on 9 October 2026. Terms vary by country, entity, account and instrument. Fictional examples explain calculations; no personal execution, deposit or withdrawal test is claimed. CFD trading carries a risk of capital loss.