FxPro Raw+ Account

What Raw+ actually delivers (measured)

What the Raw+ account actually delivered when we measured it on FxPro’s own MT5 feed:

• EUR/USD measured at a 0.2-pip median spread and about $9.00 all-in per standard lot.
• That breaks even in 0.9 pips, and the spread measured perfectly stable (stability ratio 1) — tight and steady enough to scalp.
• Across the majors the measured spread sat at or below an independent interbank reference feed (EUR/USD −0.09, AUD/USD −0.26, USD/CAD −0.64 pips).
• Market orders in our test filled in about 78 to 99 milliseconds with near-zero slippage and no rejects.
• Raw+ commission is tiered by order size, with a minimum on the smallest size:

First-hand from the live feed — full detail on our measured spreads and execution pages.

FxPro Raw+ at a glance

• Raw spreads from 0.0 pips on major pairs
• Commission of $3.50 per lot per side
• Built for frequent traders and scalpers
• Runs on MetaTrader 4 (cTrader offers a similar raw model)
• Contrasts with the Standard all-in-spread account

What practice settles about an account model, and what it leaves open

A demo and a funded account show the same prices and the same instrument list, so everything mechanical about Raw+ carries across untouched: the order ticket looks the same, the stop goes in the same field, and a position closes the same way. Drill that until it is boring. Boring is exactly what you want it to be on the morning you place a first live order, because your attention will be somewhere else entirely.

What practice cannot stage is the weight of the cost. On a demo the commission line is a number on a screen; on a funded account the same line comes out of a balance you had to put there. That difference does not change the arithmetic at all - it changes whether you notice it. Our measured spread feed and the cost breakdown show what the two models look like side by side, but the noticing is the part you have to build yourself.

One practical check before you draw any conclusion from a month of practice: know which model your practice account was opened on. Rehearsing on an all-in spread and then opening a commission-based account means the cost line in your journal changes shape on day one, and the first week of live entries will read as if something went wrong when nothing did.

The deciding number comes out of your own order history

Frequency is the first input. A raw spread plus a per-side commission is priced for people who trade often enough that a narrower spread outruns the commission; an all-in spread is priced for people who do not. Nobody knows which of those they are before they have traded. The order history answers it in one pass: count the entries in a typical week and see whether the number surprises you, because for most beginners it does.

Holding time is the second. If your positions routinely sit past the daily rollover, the account model matters less than the overnight cost you never planned for - that belongs on the swap page rather than here. If almost everything closes inside the session, the per-trade cost is the line that repeats, and it is worth getting right.

Concentration is the third. A history spread across a dozen unrelated instruments is telling you something about your practice, not about pricing: it usually means the entries were chosen by whatever was moving. Fixing that comes before choosing an account, because a scattered history cannot be reviewed for anything useful.

Journal lines that make the account question answerable

Write the expected cost of the trade at entry, before the outcome is known. One line is enough: what you thought you were paying to get in. Written afterwards it becomes a description of the result and quietly adjusts itself to fit.

Add a second line only when the cost changed your decision - a size you trimmed, an entry you skipped, a trade you took because the spread looked unusually narrow. Over a month those lines are the only honest evidence about whether the cost model is doing anything to your behaviour.

At the weekly review, read those two lines against the history. If cost never once appears in a decision, the account model is not your live problem yet and a simpler all-in spread keeps one variable out of the way. If it appears every week, you now have the history to make the comparison properly.

Turning a month of practice into an account decision

1. Open the free practice account and note which pricing model it uses, so the cost line in your journal means the same thing throughout.
2. Start the journal on the first demo order, not on the first live one: instrument and direction, why you entered, what would prove the idea wrong, and the cost you expected to pay.
3. Trade the practice account for four full weeks without changing anything about the routine, including the weeks you would rather skip.
4. Read the history back in one sitting: entries per week, average time in a trade, how many instruments appear, and how often cost shows up in your own entry lines.
5. Choose the model that matches what the history actually shows, place a first live order smaller than the demo habit, and keep the same journal running through the first live month.

The account question is answerable after the history exists. Before that, any answer is a preference dressed up as a decision.

What practice can settle about the account model, and what it cannot

Half of this table is settled in the first week of practice. The other half needs a month of it, and then a month of the real thing.

Journal lines that decide the account model later

Five short lines written at the moment of entry outrun any amount of analysis written after the position closed.

Related FxPro pages