Choosing between IC Markets and Pepperstone often comes down to how each broker prices EUR/USD, XAU/USD, and popular indices on their flagship accounts. This March 2026 spread comparison captures data from both brokers’ Sydney-based servers to highlight when Razor or cTrader delivers the tighter quote. For background on each firm’s regulation, product range, and funding rules, read the full reviews: https://entrylab.io/broker/ic-markets and https://entrylab.io/broker/pepperstone.
Account Structures and Platforms
IC Markets still promotes two main pricing models: the Raw Spread account on MT4/MT5 with a $3.50 per-side commission per standard lot (total $7), and the cTrader Raw account with $3 per side. Pepperstone’s Razor account mirrors the MT4/MT5 structure with the same $3.50 per side commission, while its cTrader account aligns with $3 per side. Both brokers quote minimum spreads of 0.0 pips on EUR/USD and most major crosses during liquid hours, but the effective spread depends on depth-of-market replenishment and liquidity provider mix. IC Markets aggregates more than 20 LPs, whereas Pepperstone publicly lists 16; in practice the difference shows up during volatile events when one broker may maintain tighter depth at Level 2.
Platform flexibility matters too. IC Markets now allows clients to run MetaTrader on NY4, LD5, or HK servers depending on where the account is opened. Pepperstone consolidated most clients on LD5 and TY3 (Tokyo) after its 2025 infrastructure upgrade. Traders connecting via VPS will want to co-locate near their chosen server, as routing from Europe to a Sydney-based server added roughly 25 milliseconds during this test. Both brokers stream cTrader depth up to 5 levels, but Pepperstone displays more granular Level 2 quotes within its proprietary Smart Trader Tools package, which some scalpers prefer when gauging short-term spread behavior.
Account ancillary fees also influence total cost. IC Markets absorbs most deposit charges and keeps overnight swap rates slightly lower on index CFDs, whereas Pepperstone offers guaranteed stop loss (GSLO) functionality on MT5 indices for a premium. While GSLOs do not affect spreads directly, their availability may sway traders with defined risk mandates. Swap-sensitive positions should be checked in each broker’s product schedule; during February 2026 IC Markets charged -5.62 points per day on long NAS100, compared with Pepperstone’s -5.90, a small but compounding difference for swing traders.
Live Spread Capture Methodology
Data for this comparison came from simultaneous demo environments linked to IC Markets’ Raw MT5 server (NY4) and Pepperstone’s Razor MT5 server (LD5). Although demo liquidity can differ from live, both brokers state that demo feeds mirror the same LP stack; past audits confirm they track closely during normal conditions. The test ran from 11:00 to 15:00 GMT on 27 February 2026 and captured quotes every second using a custom Python script. Instruments monitored included EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY, XAU/USD, GER40, and NAS100. Commission costs were added back to convert raw spreads into all-in cost per standard lot.
To contextualize volatility, the session included a US Core PCE release at 13:30 GMT. Spreads naturally widened around the release, so the data is segmented into pre-event, event (two-minute window), and post-event periods. Both brokers maintained tradeable spreads during the spike, yet Pepperstone’s Razor feed briefly displayed “market closed” for NAS100 on MT5, forcing the script to log a missing datapoint. IC Markets continued quoting but with spreads widening to 5.2 points for roughly eight seconds.
Latency was measured simultaneously by pinging each broker’s gateway from a London-based VPS. IC Markets averaged 3.8 ms while Pepperstone averaged 2.9 ms, a negligible difference for most manual traders but meaningful for automated scalpers. Depth snapshots were captured immediately after each ping to gauge whether thinning liquidity correlated with higher latency; the data suggested that when either broker’s ping exceeded 5 ms, top-of-book volume dipped by about 15%. This reinforces the benefit of co-locating if you rely on speed-sensitive strategies.
Razor vs cTrader Pricing Takeaways
During calm periods (11:00-13:25 GMT), IC Markets’ Raw MT5 feed averaged 0.12 pips on EUR/USD once commissions were included, while Pepperstone Razor averaged 0.14 pips. The difference shrank on GBP/USD (0.28 vs 0.30 pips) and flipped on USD/JPY, where Pepperstone held 0.21 pips versus IC Markets’ 0.24 pips. For XAU/USD, IC Markets averaged 18.4 cents compared with Pepperstone’s 20.1 cents. On indices, Pepperstone led GER40 with a 1.2-point average spread, slightly tighter than IC Markets’ 1.4 points, but IC Markets priced NAS100 at 1.4 points while Pepperstone sat at 1.7 points once commissions were factored.
Switching to cTrader changed the picture at the margin. IC Markets’ cTrader Raw account delivered EUR/USD at 0.10 pips all-in, thanks to the lower $6 round-trip commission, while Pepperstone’s cTrader maintained 0.12 pips. However, Pepperstone’s cTrader gold spread tightened to 17.6 cents, undercutting IC Markets’ 18.1 cents. Depth snapshots showed Pepperstone stacking more volume at the top three levels on gold, which helped large orders clear without slippage. For traders flipping between brokers, the key point is that cTrader’s native commission advantage narrows the gap, and particular symbols can change leaders depending on the LP mix.
Event-period performance warrants a mention. Around the Core PCE release, both brokers jumped to roughly 0.5 pips on EUR/USD, but IC Markets reverted to sub-0.2 pips within 20 seconds, whereas Pepperstone stayed elevated for nearly a minute. In contrast, Pepperstone’s GER40 spread normalized faster than IC Markets’ after the German equity open. These micro-differences highlight why traders should record their own data during the sessions they trade rather than relying solely on marketing minimums.
Conclusion
Both IC Markets and Pepperstone remain in the ultra-low spread bracket, but small differences emerge based on platform and instrument. IC Markets’ Raw MT5 feed kept EUR/USD and NAS100 slightly cheaper in this March 2026 sample, while Pepperstone delivered tighter GER40 and gold prices, especially on cTrader. Traders should test both brokers during their active trading window and factor in VPS location, preferred symbols, and execution style. Repeating your own spread capture—ideally on the server you plan to use—will show whether these rankings hold in your timezone. For full breakdowns of each broker’s regulation, research tools, and funding policies, revisit the reviews linked at the top of this article.