FxPro Spreads & Trading Costs
What does trading actually cost at FxPro — and is the Standard or Raw+ account cheaper for you? Spreads, commission and the all-in cost per trade.
Open FxPro Account →Cost is the part of trading a practice account describes perfectly and teaches badly. The figures are real, the tables above are measured, and none of it lands anywhere while the balance was handed to you. So the useful question for someone still practising is not which pricing model is cheaper - that is arithmetic, and it is settled above - but whether the number in front of you does any work at the moment you decide. Write down what you expected to pay before each order, keep the line running into the first live month, and read it back weekly. Almost every beginner discovers the same thing: cost changed nothing in practice and changed several decisions in the first month, and that shift is the whole lesson.
Real measured Raw+ spreads and cost
The median spread, all-in cost and how the spread compares with an independent interbank reference feed, measured on FxPro’s own MT5 Raw+ feed — first-hand, not advertised:
| Instrument | Median spread | All-in / lot | All-in (pips) | vs reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUR/USD | 0.2 pips | $9.00 | 0.9 pips | −0.09 pips |
| GBP/USD | 0.6 pips | $13.00 | 1.3 pips | +0.03 pips |
| AUD/USD | 0.4 pips | $11.00 | 1.1 pips | −0.26 pips |
| USD/CAD | 0.4 pips | $9.87 | 1.38 pips | −0.64 pips |
| USD/JPY | 0.3 pips | $8.90 | 1.4 pips | +0.14 pips |
| XAU/USD (Gold) | 15 pips | $22.00 | 22 pips | −40.2 pips |
‘All-in (pips)’ is also your break-even — the move needed to cover spread plus commission. ‘vs reference’ compares our measured spread with an independent interbank reference feed over the same hours; a negative number means FxPro’s spread was tighter. The round-turn cost is about $77.9 per $1,000,000 traded on EUR/USD. This page is the Standard-vs-Raw+ cost overview; for the live, hour-by-hour measured spread feed see our live spreads page.
How much a trade costs: Standard vs Raw+
| Instrument | Standard spread | Standard cost | Raw+ spread | Raw+ cost + comm | Cheaper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUR/USD | 1.2 pips | $12.00 | 0.2 pips | $9.00 | Raw+ |
| GBP/USD | 1.5 pips | $15.00 | 0.4 pips | $11.00 | Raw+ |
| USD/CAD | 1.6 pips | $12.00 | 0.5 pips | $10.75 | Raw+ |
| USD/JPY | 1.3 pips | $9.10 | 0.3 pips | $9.10 | About equal |
Approximate cost for a round-turn standard lot (100,000 units), in USD. Raw+ / cTrader commission is $3.50 per lot per side ($7.00 round turn) on Raw+ and cTrader accounts. Pip values and spreads are variable — confirm live figures in your platform. Last updated 2026-06-20.
Which account is cheaper for you
Raw+ replaces a wider spread with a tighter spread plus a $7 round-turn commission, so it only pays off once the spread saving beats that commission — about 0.7 pips on a $10-per-pip major such as EUR/USD. If the Standard spread is more than roughly 0.7 pips wider than the raw spread, Raw+ is cheaper; if the gap is smaller (or you trade rarely), the Standard all-in spread can win. As a rule of thumb, frequent traders on liquid majors save with Raw+, while occasional traders often prefer Standard.
Open FxPro Account →Typical FxPro spreads (all instruments)
| Instrument | Standard spread | Raw spread |
|---|---|---|
| EUR/USD | 1.2 pips | 0.2 pips |
| GBP/USD | 1.5 pips | 0.4 pips |
| USD/CAD | 1.6 pips | 0.5 pips |
| USD/JPY | 1.3 pips | 0.3 pips |
| Gold (XAU/USD) | 2.5 pips | 1.0 pips |
| US 500 (S&P) | 0.4 pts | 0.4 pts |
Indicative spreads. Metals and indices use different contract sizes — see our gold page for XAU/USD costs.
How a spread becomes a cost
The spread is the gap between the buy and sell price of a contract for difference (CFD). You pay it on entry: spread (in pips) × the pip value of one lot equals your cost. On a Standard account that spread is your whole trading cost; on Raw+ you pay a tighter raw spread plus the $7 round-turn commission. Compare the two on our Raw+ account, MT4 and MT5 pages.
The number is accurate long before it is meaningful
Everything in the tables above was measured on the same feed a funded account trades on, so there is no hidden version waiting for you. A beginner reading them while still practising already knows what a trade costs. What they do not yet know is what that knowledge is for.
Cost becomes meaningful the first time it stops you doing something - a size trimmed, an entry skipped, a re-entry declined. Until then it is a fact you can recite. The gap between reciting and using is the distance between a practice month and a live one, and it is not closed by reading more tables.
This is worth saying plainly because the usual advice runs the other way. Beginners are told to optimise the pricing model before they have a history to optimise for, and they end up with a well-chosen account and no idea whether they trade often enough for the choice to matter. The account page works through the other order: history first, model second.
What a month of entries says about cost that a table cannot
Count the entries where cost is mentioned at all. In a typical first practice month the answer is close to none, and that is not a failure - it is the baseline you will compare the live month against.
Then look at the ones where it is mentioned. Those few decisions usually have something in common: an unfamiliar instrument, an unusual hour, or an idea being re-entered for the second or third time. Each of those is a different problem wearing the same coat, and the journal is what tells them apart.
Finally, look at what is missing. Round trips in the history with no mention of cost anywhere in the journal are the clearest sign that the number was visible and ignored, which is exactly the habit the first live month will charge you for.
Cost in the weekly review, without turning it into accounting
The review question is behavioural, not financial: did cost enter a decision this week, and if so, on which trades? Answering it takes a few minutes and needs no spreadsheet, because the entry lines are already written.
Resist scoring yourself on totals. A week in which cost was noticed twice and both decisions were sensible is a better week than one with a lower total and no evidence of thinking. Totals are an outcome; the entries are the process, and only one of those is under your control.
If the same instrument keeps producing surprise about cost, the honest conclusion is that you have not learned it yet rather than that the pricing is wrong. Narrowing to a single instrument for a month is the usual fix, and the single-pair profile is where that starts.
Making cost part of the decision instead of part of the report
- Read the cost line on the ticket before confirming every practice order, until the glance stops being a deliberate act.
- Write the expected cost into the journal at entry, in the same wording every time, and never fill it in afterwards.
- Mark the trades where cost changed what you did, and leave the field empty on the ones where it did not.
- Carry both habits unchanged into the first live month, so the two records compare directly instead of describing two different routines.
- Each week, count the entries where cost appears and read what those decisions had in common - the pattern matters more than the count.
The measured figures above do not change because you wrote something down. What changes is whether they were present when it mattered.
The same cost, seen from a practice account and from a funded one
| What you see | While practising | In the first live month |
|---|---|---|
| The number on the ticket | Identical | Identical - nothing new to learn |
| Where the number lands | A balance handed to you | A balance you put there yourself |
| Whether you look before confirming | Only if you built the habit | Too late to start building it |
| Whether it changes a decision | Almost never | Occasionally, and those are the trades to read |
| Re-entering the same idea | Free in feel, visible in the history | Paid for, and still visible |
| What the weekly review can conclude | Whether the habit exists | Whether the habit survives pressure |
Only the second row differs in substance. Every other row is about attention, which is why the practice month is worth running properly.
First-month patterns that are really about cost
| Pattern in the history | How it usually gets explained | What the entry lines show |
|---|---|---|
| The same idea entered three times in a session | Impatience, or bad luck with timing | No mention of what each attempt cost |
| A new instrument most weeks | Curiosity, or following the market | No sense of what normal looks like on any of them |
| Entries clustered in thin hours | Convenience, or the only free time | Whether the hour was chosen or inherited |
| Positions closed and reopened around the rollover | Housekeeping | A horizon that was never written down |
| Sizes trimmed only after a losing week | Discipline returning | Cost appearing in the journal for the first time |
Each row is visible in the record without any calculation. What the calculation cannot supply is the sentence you wrote at the time.
Frequently asked questions
Does the cost of a trade change anything while I am still practising?
What is the cost line worth writing in the journal?
Which beginner mistake is really a cost problem?
How do I review a month of trading for cost without doing accounting?
Should a beginner choose a pricing model on cost alone?
Does a practice account charge me anything real?
How often should I re-read the measured tables above?
What does my order history say about my cost habits?
Reviews
Spreads get a thumbs up on the majors and oil — traders call them competitive and reckon orders fill fast. Gold's the sore spot: a few clock it swinging 30–45 pips, way wider than they'd like. The ECN account trades tighter but the commission stings, 'on the higher side.' Fine if you stick to majors — just eyeball the metals spread before you load up.
Worst withdrawal experience bad spread and it really messing with my stop loss I don't recommend them honestly not just to spoil there name but they should do something
I have to claim that I MAINLY satisfied with the services offered by the FxPro broker, but not completely.
Mixed feelings, supposedly top tier broker, but some spreads are rather high and within days of opening account message about dormant account fees.
Fast orders, fair spreads. Easy withdrawals. Stable fxpro platform. commissions for ecn account is on a higher side:-s
Awesome trading platform with unmatched speed of orders execution and tight spreads. I believe this combination is what helps traders earn profits.
I do prefer a raw account’ why! See spreads. Although when I started I liked the spreads in the standard account too but over time liked the idea of commission and near to zero spreads…