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 | TMGM (TradeMax Global) slippage | Fusion Markets latency | TMGM (TradeMax Global) latency | Fusion Markets spread | TMGM (TradeMax Global) spread | Fills (A/B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | N/A2 obs · 1 acct | N/A84 obs · 1 acct | 32 ms400 obs · 3 accts | 37 ms721 obs · 3 accts | 28.0314 obs · 3 accts | 13.4635 obs · 3 accts | 543 / 794 |
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: 1 within measurement noise.
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 · TMGM (TradeMax Global) — or connect an account read-only and put your own fills in these numbers.