Our ForexBrokers.com team spent seven months and hundreds of hours assessing 43 different forex broker accounts
for trading FX. In total, over 6,000 data points were collected. For this review, we will compare IG Group vs Markets.com.
To start this comparison, first, we will take a look at the fees charged for trading forex. It's important to note this is no easy task. Not every broker shares their average spreads, spreads can be fixed or variable (floating), execution policies differ, and brokers can act as market makers (dealers) or act as agents for execution. To simplify things, we analyzed everything for you and provide a single star rating for cost. IG Group's score is 4.50 stars versus Markets.com's 3.00 stars.
Cost aside, we can now turn our focus to regulation alongside currency availability. For regulation, it's very important to select a broker you can trust with your money. IG Group and Markets.com both are regulated in a major hub. IG Group alongside Markets.com are publicly traded companies. How many currency pairs are available to trade? Markets.com trails IG Group by 36 total currency pairs (for example, EUR/USD), with IG Group offering 91 and Markets.com offering 55.
To round out our comparison, let's look at the popular tools and features forex traders prefer. For platforms, some FX traders prefer MetaTrader. IG Group and Markets.com both offer Meta Trader. Within the trading platform, charting should be robust, so we counted the number of drawing tools and total technical indicators made available. Markets.com offers its clients access to 31 charting tools while IG Group has 9 charting tools, a difference of 22. IG Group trails Markets.com by 29 total different indicators (for example, moving averages), with Markets.com offering 51 and IG Group offering 22.
Overall, IG Group boasts 5.00 stars versus Markets.com's 3.50 stars. And, when it comes to individual category awards, IG Group posted awards Best in Class - Platforms & Tools, Best in Class - Research and Best in Class - Mobile Trading in 2018, while Markets.com found itself with none of these.