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 | IC Trading slippage | MetaQuotes Ltd. slippage | IC Trading latency | MetaQuotes Ltd. latency | IC Trading spread | MetaQuotes Ltd. spread | Fills (A/B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | 4.0195 obs · 2 accts | 15.0493 obs · 2 accts | 43 ms568 obs · 2 accts | 166 ms1,560 obs · 2 accts | 11.1397 obs · 2 accts | 293.21,730 obs · 2 accts | 940 / 1,737 |
Median slippage on the most-traded shared symbol (points; below 0 = price improvement).
Median across all symbols — latency is the one metric that compares across symbols.
Across 1 shared symbol, median slippage: IC Trading measured lower on 1.
Across 1 shared symbol, median fill latency: IC Trading 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: IC Trading · MetaQuotes Ltd. — or connect an account read-only and put your own fills in these numbers.