Editorial comparison
FxPro vs FP Markets: Raw, cTrader and TradingView Costs Explained
Compare Standard and Raw pricing, USD-notional versus lot-based commission, platforms, holding costs and practical workflows.
The distinction behind the account names
FxPro and FP Markets offer leveraged forex and CFD accounts. Both have spread-inclusive structures and structures separating spreads from execution commission. The labels do not guarantee equivalent conditions: FP Markets Raw, FxPro Raw+ on its global table and a cTrader account are not the same charging model.
Your current platform is a useful starting point. Both brokers document MetaTrader, cTrader and TradingView options, subject to account and entity. Choose a workflow before comparing the cost of a specific trade. Read the FxPro review and FP Markets review for details.
Standard versus Raw: what is included?
FxPro Standard on MT4/5 lists major-FX spreads from 1.2 pips. FP Markets’ global table lists Standard from 1.0 pip without separate FX execution commission, and Raw from 0.0 with commission. Starting values are neither fixed spreads nor averages during your trading period.
A lower spread alone does not prove a cheaper account. Add commission for opening and closing, and verify its measurement basis. At small sizes, minimum order size, currency conversion and payment costs may also be significant. Longer holding periods require funding costs to be added.
cTrader: USD notional affects FxPro commission
FxPro cTrader charges USD35 per USD1 million traded per side for FX and spot metals. EUR or GBP base-currency notional is first converted to USD. A non-USD account also requires conversion of the commission amount. A USD3.50 headline is therefore not a fixed charge for every 100,000-unit trade in every currency.
FP Markets Raw lists USD3 per side per FX lot. Check the lot definition and the account-currency commission schedule rather than applying this figure automatically to shares, metals or other instruments. An ILS comparison also needs the relevant conversion rate; no live rate or fixed conversion charge is assumed here.
Illustration: the same pair and hypothetical spread
Assume EUR100,000 of EUR/USD, a USD account and an unchanged illustrative exchange rate of 1.10. FxPro cTrader notional is USD110,000: USD3.85 per side, or USD7.70 round turn. A hypothetical 0.2-pip spread adds USD2, producing USD9.70.
For FP Markets Raw, assuming a standard 100,000-unit FX lot and USD account, round-turn commission is USD6. Adding the same hypothetical spread produces USD8. The difference comes from the charging basis, not a forecast of the price you will receive. The calculation excludes swaps, slippage and exchange-rate changes between entry and exit.
TradingView and cTrader: select the connection route
Both companies document trading through TradingView. FP Markets describes a Raw account and cTrader ID for the connection; its global account table distinguishes Standard from Raw and includes TradingView on Raw. Do not assume that every Standard account or platform has the same connection.
FxPro describes connecting a supported account through TradingView’s Trading Panel. In practice mode, check the instrument, order types, stop amendments and account information. Chart subscriptions, market data and automation tools may be separate components. A platform list does not establish that an EA or cBot transfers without modification.
Holding, funding and withdrawals
A leveraged position held beyond the charging time may accrue funding costs. Direction, instrument and charging date matter, so entry commission is insufficient. Multi-day traders should add their holding scenario and inspect any special conditions for swap-free arrangements.
Payment method and account currency matter too. FxPro’s funding page describes no company charges subject to exceptions, while banks or processors may impose costs. At FP Markets, verify the method and entity applicable to the account. A deposit-fee headline does not establish that the entire funding process is free.
Read the entity terms, not only the group name
Global group information does not replace the customer’s account agreement. FxPro has separate entities with different frameworks. This FP Markets comparison uses its global account table; Australian retail limits and other-entity conditions remain separate. Leverage or protections should not be transferred between entities.
CFDs do not confer ownership of the underlying asset, and leveraged trading can cause rapid losses. Country restrictions, client classification and instrument specifications may change the options. The language in which you read the site neither determines residence nor approves account opening.
Which belongs on your shortlist?
FxPro merits examination for traders who prefer its tools or cTrader workflow and want to understand USD-notional commission. FP Markets merits examination for traders seeking a clear Standard/Raw distinction and its Raw TradingView connection. This is not an overall ranking or a claim of personal trading experience.
If both support your workflow, compare the same instrument, size and holding period. Examine the operations you need, without assuming a demo establishes how every live order will execute. Interface convenience does not remove financial risk.
The next comparison step
Select a specific account at each company and retain the complete commission definition, including units and trade sides. Read instrument specifications and overnight charges before calculating total cost. Where conditions differ from the illustration, replace its assumptions with your account’s figures.
Open the FxPro and FP Markets table and read FxPro versus HFM. The decision need not rest on one starting spread: it should explain what you will pay and which product and account you receive.