Broker execution scoreboard
Broker execution scoreboard
Broker execution comparison
Both brokers are measured from real fills on connected accounts — never from reviews or marketing. Every displayed metric has at least 30 observations from one account on each side, and the execution scores normalize per symbol, so neither broker gains from trading easier symbols. Spread uses the closest pre-fill tick. Unsupported cells remain N/A. No winner is declared: the honest answer depends on the symbols and sessions you trade.
Lower value in bold — a fact per metric, not a verdict. Slippage and spread are in symbol points; latency in milliseconds.
| Symbol | Fusion Markets slippage | MetaQuotes Ltd. slippage | Fusion Markets latency | MetaQuotes Ltd. latency | Fusion Markets spread | MetaQuotes Ltd. spread | Fills (A/B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | N/A0 obs · 0 accts | N/A379 obs · 2 accts | 32 ms318 obs · 3 accts | 167 ms1,398 obs · 2 accts | 14.7232 obs · 3 accts | 317.61,473 obs · 2 accts | 346 / 1,478 |
Median across all symbols — latency is the one metric that compares across symbols.
Both brokers' slippage is measured per shared symbol in the table on this page — points aren't comparable across symbols, so check the symbols you trade.
Across 1 shared symbol, median fill latency: Fusion Markets measured lower on 1.
From real fills on connected accounts at both brokers. Every metric needs at least 30 observations from one account on each side; unsupported cells stay N/A (1 shared symbol with usable evidence today). No reviews, broker marketing or affiliate links.
Full reviews: Fusion Markets · MetaQuotes Ltd. — or connect an account read-only and put your own fills in these numbers.