IC Markets vs XM: Head-to-Head Comparison
A clear, editorial comparison of safety, costs, leverage and platform conditions for traders choosing between two brokers.
At a glance
The key differences before the full technical breakdown.
Broker A
IC Markets
Editorial score
$200
Min deposit
1:30 retail regulated; up to 1:500 professional/global entity
Leverage
Execution-focused broker with leverage determined by entity and client classification.
Visit IC Markets
Broker B
XM
Editorial score
$5
Min deposit
1:30 in Italy; varies by region
Leverage
Globally regulated broker with deep metals liquidity.
Visit XMSwipe horizontally to compare Broker A and Broker B
Technical comparison
Choosing between IC Markets and XM comes down to the conditions that matter most to your strategy. Both brokers offer access to the major markets, but their regulatory coverage, pricing model and platform mix create different trade-offs.
What separates IC Markets and XM?
Start with the regulated entity available in your jurisdiction, then compare the total cost of trading rather than the headline spread alone. Leverage can change margin requirements, but it does not reduce market risk. Platform stability, execution quality, funding options and support should also be part of the decision.
Pros and cons at a glance
IC Markets
Deep liquidity and raw spreads
Broad professional platform choice
Strong execution reputation
Retail leverage capped at 1:30 under ASIC/CySEC entities
No bonus advertised
XM
Long operating history with multi-region regulation
Very low $5 minimum deposit
Deep liquidity on gold and metals
Bonus terms vary by region
Wider spreads on entry accounts
Editor's final verdict
IC Markets has the edge for most traders.
Choose IC Markets if you want forex traders prioritising execution and platform choice over bonuses, especially where regulated leverage limits apply. Choose XM if your priority is traders who want a long-established, globally regulated broker with a low barrier to entry and strong metals liquidity..
Visit IC Markets