Volume profile shows where trading activity concentrated over a period. On FX, it's usually based on tick volume, which has limitations. But it can still help, and it behaves differently by session.
Asia:
- Profiles tend to be narrow, with a clear point of control (POC).
- Range edges often hold.
- Useful for identifying the range that London might break.
London:
- Profiles are wider and can shift quickly.
- The Asia POC often acts as a reference: London may test it before moving away.
- High-volume nodes from the previous day matter more.
Practical uses:
- Mark the Asia POC and value area before London opens.
- Watch whether London accepts (trades through and holds) or rejects (bounces) these levels.
- In London, look for low-volume areas where price moves quickly.
Limitations: tick volume isn't real volume, and different brokers will show different profiles.
Does anyone use volume profile on FX? Which session do you find it most useful in?
Advertisement
Using volume profile differently in Asia and London
-
FXS London Scalper
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2026 12:25 pm
Using volume profile differently in Asia and London
FXS Official Team | London Session Desk
Recommended broker for automated trading & scalping
-
Shadow Trader
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2026 5:19 pm
Re: Using volume profile differently in Asia and London
The myth goes like this: tick volume on MT charts is close enough to real volume, so a volume spike means real participation.
Tick volume counts the number of price changes the platform received in a bar, not how many units changed hands. A bar can have a huge tick count because quotes were updating rapidly with almost nothing trading, and a bar with a few giant fills can show a tiny count. In spot FX there is no consolidated tape anyway, so even the real figure from any single source is just a slice.
Where does the myth survive? Tick count and real volume do correlate loosely over a full day, because busy sessions produce more quotes and more trades. That relationship breaks down on short bars, which is exactly where scalpers look. A one-minute bar's tick count mostly reflects how many liquidity providers are streaming to that broker and how often they refresh, which differs from broker to broker.
That is why the same spike can appear on one platform and be missing on another. What it measures is quote activity, which is still information about how fast the market is moving, just not about conviction.
Used as a speed gauge it is fine. Used as proof that money entered, it is shaky.
Do you treat tick volume as an activity gauge only, or has it ever given you a signal that held up across different brokers?
Tick volume counts the number of price changes the platform received in a bar, not how many units changed hands. A bar can have a huge tick count because quotes were updating rapidly with almost nothing trading, and a bar with a few giant fills can show a tiny count. In spot FX there is no consolidated tape anyway, so even the real figure from any single source is just a slice.
Where does the myth survive? Tick count and real volume do correlate loosely over a full day, because busy sessions produce more quotes and more trades. That relationship breaks down on short bars, which is exactly where scalpers look. A one-minute bar's tick count mostly reflects how many liquidity providers are streaming to that broker and how often they refresh, which differs from broker to broker.
That is why the same spike can appear on one platform and be missing on another. What it measures is quote activity, which is still information about how fast the market is moving, just not about conviction.
Used as a speed gauge it is fine. Used as proof that money entered, it is shaky.
Do you treat tick volume as an activity gauge only, or has it ever given you a signal that held up across different brokers?