In manual trading you might have noticed differences. Of course it goes much better in comparison with a fully automatic robot. In automated trading, the broker is at least as important as the right EA system. Sometimes even more important than the system itself. This is true even for reputable brokers, as you can see here in the FX Broker comparison/benchmark below!
The best way for a FX broker comparison goes with an trading Algo, which is installed on different accounts. In the case of the benchmark EA, it must be ensured that this has a very short average retention time and works with pending orders. In addition, the SL should be close to the opening price and trailing functions should be used. This combination of these parameters in conjunction with the appropriate strategy in the form of an EAs makes many a broker’s life difficult, so that the TopRobot is very suitable for a broker comparison.
The market is changing all the time, not just by the influence of the market participants.
- Increasing competition among the market participants ultimately leads to slippage. How do you figure out who offers the best market access for the respective strategy?
- An increasing competition among the brokers leads to other things. To improve you need to reflect on the infrastructure & price policy. Strategies and techniques become accessible, which a few years ago were reserved almost exclusively for institutional purposes.
Some brokers remain on the track and disappear, others are always better. Others offer the very good infrastructure and are no longer at the top (eg FXCM).
I had gotten damned for the benchmark to get a very popular EA for a couple of months. The developer has already put a good performance, so I’m sure this algorithm works very well. But only if the rest is correct and exactly in this direction I have optimized, since I was not so good. To help me out I made sure of 2 things. 1: the speed and set screw 2: the total trading cost.
The performance has been worse at many brokers because the market does not serve all the pending orders anymore, as the strategy simply was too popular. This inevitably leads to Slippage.
Identical trades with different brokers
TradeView ILC Account +23,19%
FXCM UK +11,9%
ICMarkets (Real ECN Account) +16,29%
Platz 1: TradeView (ILC) +23,19%
Platz 2: ICMarkets (Real ECN) +16,29%
Platz 3: FXCM UK +11,9%
Platz 4: VantageFX +2,85%
The comparison takes place with an expert advisor, which generates different slippage values ??for identical brokers for different traders, which has a strong effect on the overall performance.
The only test factor/parameter that makes it difficult to find an ideal value is the latency. Because it is hardly possible to get all the brokers that are being tested to get exactly the same ping. An artificial latency is installed to synchronize all trades before the order is abandoned. This would, however, distort the overall result. Regardless of that, I assume that the systems I compare here have a good ping of 1-3ms. The ping at Tradeview from the first graphic is between 1.2 – 1.4 ms.
The following result of the evaluation I have summarized for you graphically in a Custom-Analysis.
Evaluation 22 April to 30 May 2016
Despite the best performance, all brokers, including FXCM & TradeView, still generate slippage, which means that the algo is most profitable with fastest brokers with good liquidity. Since all trades have been held for the most part at the same time, the influence of the slippage can be seen here.
The reviews & experience reports on TradeView Forex/Markets at FPA and MyFxBook have generally been very positive, which indicates a good reputation of the broker. In my opinion, the only account that can compete under the most difficult market conditions in this test is the Active Trade account of FXCM. Unfortunately it is only available from a high deposit> 15 000 EUR! TradeView is currently only 1000 USD!