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 | TMGM (TradeMax Global) slippage | IC Trading latency | TMGM (TradeMax Global) latency | IC Trading spread | TMGM (TradeMax Global) spread | Fills (A/B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | 4.0195 obs · 2 accts | 31.076 obs · 1 acct | 42 ms522 obs · 2 accts | 37 ms702 obs · 3 accts | 11.1397 obs · 2 accts | 13.3615 obs · 3 accts | 974 / 786 |
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: 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: IC Trading · TMGM (TradeMax Global) — or connect an account read-only and put your own fills in these numbers.