Comparing a Standard Account and a Raw Account With Real Numbers

[Fairman]

Comparing a Standard Account and a Raw Account With Real Numbers

Scenario: a trader takes 20 trades a week of 0.5 lots on EUR/USD. A standard account charges a 1.2-pip spread and no commission. A raw account shows a 0.1-pip spread plus a commission of 7 dollars per standard lot round trip.

Work it out per standard lot. Standard: 1.2 pips at 10 dollars is 12 dollars. Raw: 0.1 pip is 1 dollar, plus 7 dollars commission, which is 8 dollars.

Per 0.5-lot trade: standard 6 dollars, raw 4 dollars. Over 20 trades a week: standard 120 dollars, raw 80 dollars. The raw account saves 40 dollars a week, or about 2,080 dollars a year on this activity.

Now test the assumption. Average spreads in marketing are minimums. During news, rollover, or low liquidity, the raw spread may widen to 0.8 or 1.5 pips, while the commission stays at 7 dollars. If your average raw spread is actually 0.5 pips, the cost is 5 plus 7, or 12 dollars per lot, equal to the standard account.

For a swing trader taking four trades a month, the difference is a few dollars, and the simpler standard account is fine.

So the right choice depends on your trade count, your hours, and the real average spread.

Takeaway: calculate with your own volume and measured spreads, not the advertised minimums.

Practical step: log the spread at entry for your next twenty trades, and recompute the cost comparison.

[FXS HongKong Scalper]

The arithmetic checks out. Two extra points worth adding. Some brokers quote the raw commission per side, so 3.50 per lot per side adds up to 7 for the full in-and-out, but others quote 7 per side, which changes the result completely. Always check whether the number is per side or per round turn.

Also, the gap between the two accounts grows when spreads widen. At rollover or in thin Asian hours the raw spread may go from 0.1 to 0.8 while the standard account goes from 1.2 to 2.0, so the saving per lot stays similar, but it becomes a smaller share of the total cost.

[Fairman]

The baseline comparison checks out. Per standard lot, the standard account costs 12 dollars in spread and the raw account 8 dollars in spread plus commission. For an active trader doing 20 trades a week at 0.5 lots, the 40 dollar weekly saving adds up to about 2,080 dollars a year, which is significant. But the sensitivity test is the key insight. If the raw spread averages 0.5 pips instead of 0.1, the cost rises to 12 dollars per lot, exactly matching the standard account. So the advertised minimum spread can make the raw account look much cheaper than it is in practice.

[Amanhasnoname]

I ran this comparison on my own statements last spring, and the per side versus round turn issue mentioned above was the first thing that caught me. My raw broker advertised 2.50 per lot and I assumed that was the full round trip, until the first weekly statement showed it charged on both the open and the close.

What changed my numbers most was measuring the real spread. I logged the spread at entry for 31 trades on EUR/USD and the average was 0.4 pips, not the 0.1 on the pricing page, mostly because I trade the London open when quotes are still thin. At that average my raw account came out only slightly cheaper than standard.

So I would go with your last suggestion and log entries for a few weeks before choosing. For my style, around fifteen trades a week in the morning session, raw still won by a small margin, but I would have picked wrong if I had trusted the marketing figures.

[Fairman]

Logging the spread at entry, as the practical step suggests, gives the real figure. Many platforms show the spread in the market watch window, and some record it in the trade history. If not, noting the bid and ask at the moment of entry works. Over twenty trades, the average gives a reliable comparison. Spreads vary by time of day, with the tightest usually during the London and New York overlap, roughly 14:00 to 17:30 WAT in winter, and the widest around the daily rollover at 23:00 WAT. A trader's actual hours determine which spread applies.

[Fairman]

It's worth checking whether the standard account's spread also widens. If the standard account's 1.2 pips is a typical figure that widens to 2 or 3 pips at times, the comparison changes again. Both account types should be measured at the same times for a fair comparison. Some brokers also offer different execution models on each account type, such as market execution on raw accounts and instant execution on standard accounts, which can affect slippage. The total cost per trade, including slippage, is the true comparison, and it can only be measured from your own fills.

[Fairman]

The point about swing traders is a good reminder that the answer depends on the trading style. Four trades a month at modest sizes makes the cost difference trivial, and other factors, such as swap rates, platform features, or customer service, might matter more. For scalpers and active day traders, the cost difference can be large enough to determine whether the strategy is profitable at all. Has anyone here switched between standard and raw accounts and measured the difference in actual costs? I'd be curious whether the real saving matched the advertised one.