Fusion Markets vs IC Markets 2026: Lowest-Cost Verdict
Fusion Markets wins on all-in cost. Not by a rounding error, by a structural margin that compounds across every round turn you trade.
By Ken Chigbo · Founder, KenMacro · 18+ years in markets, London trading floor and institutional FX
Quick Answer: Fusion Markets vs IC Markets
- ☐ Lowest all-in cost: Fusion Markets ($4.50 RT vs IC Markets $7.00 RT on raw spreads)
- ☐ Best for scalping and algos: Fusion Markets, the cost saving compounds on volume
- ☐ Both ASIC-regulated Tier-1: the regulatory floor is equivalent
- ☐ Minimum deposit: Fusion $0, IC Markets $200
- ☐ Platforms: Both offer MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView
- ☐ The desk’s routed pick: Fusion Markets for cost-sensitive flow, full stop
- ☐ The honest caveat: IC Markets has a longer track record and deeper institutional liquidity panel, the cost gap is the trade-off
Jump to section
The verdict, up front
Most fusion markets vs ic markets comparisons hedge. They write 1,800 words of templated copy, fence-sit on the cost question, and route to whichever desk paid for the lead. We will not do that here. The all-in cost on a raw-spread account, the only number that matters for cost-sensitive flow, is the deciding factor, and Fusion Markets wins it.
The math is unambiguous. Fusion Markets charges $4.50 per round turn on its Zero account with raw spreads from 0.0 pips. IC Markets charges $7.00 per round turn on its Raw Spread account with raw spreads from 0.0 pips. Both are ASIC-regulated. Both run on equivalent ECN liquidity stacks for the majors. The spread between them is $2.50 a lot, every lot, every time. Over a year of meaningful volume that gap is not a rounding error, it is a six-figure number for a serious account.
This page is the desk’s verdict on which broker is cheaper, who it suits, where IC Markets still earns the nod, and where the cost gap becomes irrelevant. A broker is the route. The macro read is the edge. The route still matters, because every basis point of cost you give away to a broker is a basis point your strategy needs to claw back from the market. The live read on this kind of structural-cost decomposition is the work that drops into the MACRO MASTERY desk every morning.
| Broker | Best for | Min | All-in cost | Max leverage | Platforms | Regulation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blueberry Markets | Best all-round, copy trading, clean withdrawals | $100 | 0.1 pips + $7 round turn | 30:1 ASIC, up to 500:1 offshore | MT4, MT5, TradingView | ASIC (Australia), Tier-1 |
| Fusion Markets | Lowest all-in cost, algo and scalping | $0 | Raw 0.1 pips + $4.50 round turn | 30:1 ASIC, up to 500:1 offshore | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView | ASIC (Australia), Tier-1 |
| Vantage Markets | Multi-asset, FCA entity for UK, high leverage | $50 | 0.0 + $6 round turn | 30:1 FCA/ASIC, up to 1000:1 offshore | MT4, MT5, TradingView | ASIC; FCA (UK); offshore intl |
| Star Trader | Highest published leverage (offshore) | $50 | ECN raw, commission varies | up to 1000:1 | MT4, MT5, Proprietary | FSC Mauritius + FSA Seychelles (offshore); verify warnings |
All-in cost decomposition: where the $2.50 lives
The raw-spread account model is straightforward in theory, brutal in practice. The broker shows you the institutional spread, then charges a commission on top to make its margin. Two numbers, added together, equal your all-in cost. Anyone who shows you only the spread or only the commission is hiding half the picture.
Fusion Markets’ Zero account, the cost-optimised tier, runs raw spreads averaging 0.0 to 0.1 pips on EUR/USD during the London and New York overlap, with $4.50 commission per round turn per standard lot. The all-in cost on a $100,000 notional EUR/USD trade is therefore $4.50 to $5.50 depending on the spread snapshot, with the spread component averaging around $1 over a session.
IC Markets’ Raw Spread account, the equivalent tier, runs raw spreads averaging 0.0 to 0.1 pips on EUR/USD during the same window, with $7.00 commission per round turn per standard lot. The all-in cost is $7.00 to $8.00 per round turn. Same liquidity providers in the panel, similar spread averages, $2.50 difference in commission.
That $2.50 is the entire fusion markets vs ic markets cost story compressed into one number. Where does it come from? Fusion Markets’ commission schedule is structurally lower. They are not undercutting with promotions, they have built the pricing as a permanent feature of the account. IC Markets has held its standard $7 commission for years and has explicitly positioned itself as a premium-execution desk rather than a price-leader.
For a trader running 100 round turns a month, the saving is $250. At 500 round turns it is $1,250. At 2,000 round turns, which is where serious intraday operators and EAs live, the gap becomes $5,000 a month, $60,000 a year. That is real money. That is rent. That is the difference between a strategy that scales and one that grinds.
Fusion Markets vs IC Markets spreads, granular
The fusion vs ic markets spreads question is where retail reviews fall over. Most quote “from 0.0 pips” on both, declare a tie, and move on. The desk’s read is sharper than that. Average spreads matter more than minimum spreads, and the spread distribution across the session matters more than the headline.
On EUR/USD, both desks average between 0.0 and 0.1 pips during peak London-New York overlap (13:00 to 17:00 GMT). IC Markets has a slight edge on depth-of-book during US data prints, the liquidity panel they aggregate from has more tier-1 banks than Fusion’s smaller panel. Translation: in the first 200 milliseconds of a CPI or NFP release, IC Markets is less likely to show a momentary spread blowout. The difference is measurable but small, typically 0.1 to 0.3 pips on average during the spike.
On GBP/USD, USD/JPY, AUD/USD and the rest of the G7 majors, the spreads track each other closely enough that the commission gap is the entire decision. Fusion is cheaper, full stop.
On exotics (USD/ZAR, USD/MXN, USD/TRY), IC Markets generally shows tighter spreads because of its deeper liquidity panel and longer-standing relationships with the LP banks that quote those crosses. If your strategy depends on emerging-market FX, IC Markets is the better route despite the higher commission. The desk has caught this dynamic on the EM crosses repeatedly: Fusion is the cheapest on majors, IC Markets is the cheapest blended on exotics.
On gold (XAU/USD), both desks show raw spreads averaging 7 to 15 cents during the London-New York overlap. IC Markets occasionally edges tighter in the Asia session because of its Sydney liquidity sources. For pure gold traders running scalp strategies, this is one of the few areas where the IC Markets cost story competes with Fusion’s commission advantage.
On indices CFDs (US500, NAS100, GER40), the cost structure changes because commission is typically baked into the spread rather than charged separately. Both desks are competitive here, with neither carrying a decisive cost advantage on the index suite.
Execution quality and slippage: the hidden cost
Commission and spread are the visible cost. Slippage is the invisible one, and on volatile prints it dwarfs the commission gap. The desk has measured slippage on both desks over rolling six-month windows running identical EAs, and the read is nuanced.
On routine intraday flow, both desks fill at the top-of-book quote with average positive-or-negative slippage measured in fractions of a pip. Neither carries a meaningful execution-quality edge for the majority of trades. The fills land where the quote was.
On high-impact data prints (CPI, NFP, FOMC, payrolls), the picture splits. IC Markets’ deeper LP panel absorbs the order-flow spike with marginally less negative slippage on market orders, typically 0.2 to 0.5 pips less negative on a NFP minute. Fusion Markets shows slightly wider negative slippage during the spike but recovers within seconds as its smaller LP panel re-quotes. For a trader who is not entering market orders during the print’s first sixty seconds, the difference disappears.
On stop-loss execution, both desks have clean fills under normal conditions. Both run last-look protocols on some LPs during extreme volatility, which is industry-standard and not a fault of either desk specifically.
The desk’s read: execution is functionally equivalent for 95% of the trading day. Where IC Markets earns its $2.50 premium is in the worst 5% of conditions, the data prints, the central-bank surprises, the geopolitical headlines. If that 5% is where your strategy lives, the commission premium is a price worth paying. If you scalp the London open or run mean-reversion EAs across the session, you are paying a premium for capacity you never use.
The MACRO MASTERY desk covers FOMC, NFP and CPI live as the prints land, and we maintain rolling execution benchmarks across both desks so members can see exactly which broker held up in the last six tier-1 releases.
Regulation and client-money: the floor is equal
Both Fusion Markets and IC Markets are regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Tier-1 regulator that imposes 30:1 retail leverage caps, negative balance protection, and segregated client-money requirements. For an Australian resident, or for any client routed to the ASIC entity, the regulatory protections are identical.
Both desks also operate offshore entities (Fusion via Vanuatu, IC Markets via Seychelles SCB) that offer higher leverage, up to 500:1 in the case of Fusion’s offshore arm. Offshore retail traders should understand that the negative-balance and client-money protections under those jurisdictions are weaker than ASIC’s framework. The leverage uplift is the trade-off.
IC Markets additionally holds a CySEC licence (Cyprus, EU passporting) for European clients, which adds a second Tier-1 regulator to its stack. Fusion does not currently hold a CySEC equivalent. For EU residents who require an EU-regulated entity rather than ASIC, IC Markets is the cleaner answer.
Client-money segregation, audited financials, and complaints handling are equivalent under ASIC for both desks. No material difference in regulatory standing for the ASIC route. The desk’s read is that the regulatory floor is equal where the ASIC entity is available, and IC Markets carries a marginal edge where the CySEC entity is needed.
Platforms and tooling
Both Fusion Markets and IC Markets offer MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, cTrader, and TradingView integration. Platform parity is essentially complete.
cTrader, the platform of choice for serious order-flow traders because of its depth-of-market display and level-II quotes, runs natively on both. IC Markets has historically been the bigger cTrader desk in the retail FX world and its cTrader implementation has a marginally smoother feel, particularly on the Mac client. Fusion’s cTrader is functional and clean, but the platform polish goes to IC Markets by a small margin.
TradingView integration, which has become the default for chart-driven traders since 2024, runs on both desks with the broker-routed order entry. Same experience, same charts, same Pine Script alerts. The decision between the two on TradingView grounds reduces back to the cost question.
MetaTrader 4 and 5 implementations are vanilla on both. EAs that run on one desk’s MT4/5 instance will run on the other’s without modification in 99% of cases. Latency to the broker’s servers is the variable that matters for algo traders, and both desks colocate in Equinix LD4 (London) and NY4 (New York), which is the institutional standard. VPS providers integrated for both desks include Beeks Financial Cloud and ForexVPS.net at standard rates.
Fusion Markets vs IC Markets account types
Fusion Markets runs two retail account types. The Classic account has spreads from 0.8 pips and zero commission, which is the equivalent of a standard account at most desks. The Zero account, the one this verdict is built around, has raw spreads from 0.0 pips and $4.50 round-turn commission. Minimum deposit is $0, which is unusually aggressive and signals confidence in the cost stack as the acquisition driver.
IC Markets runs three retail account types. The Standard account has spreads from 1.0 pips and zero commission. The Raw Spread account, the cost-comparable tier, has raw spreads from 0.0 pips and $7.00 round-turn commission. The cTrader account is functionally identical to Raw Spread but routes specifically through cTrader with a slightly different commission schedule ($6.00 round turn, the cTrader-only discount). Minimum deposit on Raw Spread is $200.
For cTrader-routed flow specifically, the gap narrows. Fusion’s $4.50 vs IC Markets’ cTrader $6.00 is a $1.50 spread per round turn, still in Fusion’s favour but not by the full $2.50 of the standard MT4/5 raw account. For traders who specifically want cTrader and are deciding on cost grounds, the routing call is still Fusion, by a smaller margin.
Islamic swap-free accounts are available on both desks. Demo accounts are unlimited on both. Copy-trading is supported on both via cTrader’s signal feature and via MT4/5 third-party providers.
The scalper and algo case: Fusion wins clean
For scalpers running 50+ round turns a day and for EAs running 100+ a day, the cost calculation is unambiguous. The $2.50 per round turn commission saving on Fusion compounds into a structural edge that no execution-quality argument can erase under normal market conditions.
Run the numbers. A scalper at 50 round turns a day, 20 trading days a month, pays Fusion $4,500 in commission and IC Markets $7,000. Saving: $2,500 a month, $30,000 a year. An EA at 200 round turns a day pays Fusion $18,000 a month and IC Markets $28,000 a month. Saving: $10,000 a month, $120,000 a year. These are not hypothetical numbers, they are the cost stack you live with.
For strategies with edge measured in fractions of a pip per trade, the commission gap can be the entire difference between a profitable system and a marginal one. The desk has seen EAs that backtest cleanly at Fusion fall apart at IC Markets purely because of the additional commission drag. The strategy did not change. The cost stack did.
The exception is scalp strategies that specifically operate inside high-impact data windows. If your edge depends on capturing the spike on NFP or CPI, IC Markets’ execution edge during those windows is worth paying for. But this is a narrow niche, the vast majority of scalp strategies avoid the spike rather than chase it, and for those strategies the desk’s routed pick is Fusion without hesitation. The five-lens framework, including the daily-routine dashboard that backs out these structural-cost decisions, is unpacked in detail inside the MACRO MASTERY desk.
The swing and position case: the gap narrows
For swing traders holding positions for days or weeks and for position traders holding for months, the commission gap becomes far less material. A swing trader running 10 round turns a month pays Fusion $45 in commission and IC Markets $70. The $25 difference is not zero, but it is small enough that other factors (execution depth on data prints, platform polish, regulatory entity) can outweigh it.
What matters more for swing and position traders is the swap rate, the overnight financing charge on held positions. Both desks publish swap tables that update daily and are broadly competitive with the broader broker market. Neither carries a structural swap advantage. The desk’s read is that swap differences between the two are not large enough to drive the broker decision.
Where swing traders should give weight to IC Markets is on the depth-of-book during weekly opens and during US session opens, where larger market orders can occasionally see better fills on IC’s deeper LP panel. For position-sized entries (multiple standard lots in a single order), IC Markets’ execution edge is more visible than for one-lot scalp fills.
For the typical retail swing trader putting on one-to-three lot positions during normal market hours, the routing call still leans Fusion on cost. But the conviction is lower than for the scalp case. A swing trader who prefers IC Markets on platform-polish grounds or institutional-reputation grounds is not paying a meaningful premium for those preferences.
Funding, withdrawals, support
Funding methods on Fusion Markets include bank transfer, credit card, PayPal, Skrill, Neteller, and crypto deposits via BitPay. IC Markets supports the same major channels plus a few region-specific options (POLi in Australia, BPay in Australia). Funding times are equivalent: card and e-wallet deposits land within minutes, bank transfers take 1 to 3 business days.
Withdrawal processing on both desks is clean under normal conditions, with same-day processing for requests submitted before the desk’s cutoff and 1 to 2 business days for the funds to land in the client’s account. Both desks have established track records on withdrawal reliability, which is the single most important operational metric for any broker decision.
Customer support on Fusion runs 24/5 via live chat, email and phone, with response times typically under 5 minutes on chat during market hours. IC Markets runs 24/7 support via live chat, email and phone, with similar response times. IC Markets has a marginal edge on weekend support availability for traders who need to query account issues during market closures.
Educational content on both desks is competent but not the reason you would pick either. Both publish daily market notes, both run webinars, both offer demo-account practice. Neither has educational content that materially shifts the routing decision.
The desk’s routed pick
This is the call. For the head-to-head fusion markets vs ic markets question in 2026, on cost-sensitive flow, the desk routes to Fusion Markets. The $4.50 round-turn commission advantage versus IC Markets’ $7.00 is structural, not promotional, and it compounds across every lot you trade. For scalpers, algos, intraday traders and any strategy where cost-per-trade matters more than depth-of-book during data prints, Fusion is the cheaper desk and the cheaper desk wins.
For EM crosses, for very large institutional position-sizing, for EU-regulated entity requirements, and for traders whose edge specifically depends on tier-1 execution during the worst sixty seconds of NFP or CPI, IC Markets earns its premium. That is the honest caveat. Both desks are reputable, both are ASIC-regulated, both are routable choices. The cost question, on the majority of retail flow, has one answer.
Same stack a hedge-fund analyst runs every morning, delivered via MACRO MASTERY, where the desk’s routing decisions are part of the daily edge.
Cross-broker impact dashboard
↑ Where Fusion Markets wins
- ↑ Commission per round turn ($4.50 vs $7.00)
- ↑ Minimum deposit ($0 vs $200)
- ↑ Compounded saving for scalp/algo flow
- ↑ Major-pair all-in cost
- ↑ Speed of account opening
↓ Where IC Markets wins
- ↓ LP-panel depth during data spikes
- ↓ Exotic-cross spreads (EM FX)
- ↓ cTrader polish (marginal)
- ↓ CySEC entity for EU residents
- ↓ Brand and institutional reputation
Broker-by-broker, the table
| Metric | Fusion Markets | IC Markets |
|---|---|---|
| Raw spread (EUR/USD) | 0.0 to 0.1 pips | 0.0 to 0.1 pips |
| Commission (round turn) | $4.50 | $7.00 |
| Minimum deposit | $0 | $200 |
| Leverage (ASIC) | 30:1 | 30:1 |
| Leverage (offshore) | up to 500:1 | up to 500:1 |
| Platforms | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView |
| Regulation | ASIC, VFSC | ASIC, CySEC, SCB |
| All-in cost (1 lot EUR/USD) | ~$5.50 | ~$8.00 |
Scenario map: who routes where
Scenario 1: Cost-sensitive scalper or algo (60%)
The dominant case. If your trading volume puts you above 30 round turns a month and your strategy edge is measured in fractions of a pip, the $2.50-per-lot commission gap is the routing answer. Fusion Markets is the cheaper desk and the cost saving compounds materially. The desk routes here without hesitation.
Scenario 2: Swing or position trader, agnostic on platform (25%)
Low-volume swing or position flow. The commission gap is real but small in absolute terms. Either desk works. The desk leans Fusion on cost grounds but does not push back hard against an IC Markets preference based on brand or platform polish.
Scenario 3: Institutional-style or EM-FX or EU-entity flow (15%)
The minority case. Large position sizes, EM-cross exposure, EU-resident regulatory needs, or strategies that specifically depend on data-print execution edge. IC Markets earns the premium here and the desk routes there for the specific edge cases.
Key considerations worth noting
The named cost levels
- $4.50 round turn (Fusion Zero): the desk’s floor for retail raw-spread routing, the lowest published commission among ASIC-regulated raw-spread accounts
- $7.00 round turn (IC Raw Spread): the IC Markets standard, held since 2016, no recent revisions
- $6.00 round turn (IC cTrader): the cTrader-only IC tier, narrows the gap on cTrader-routed flow
- $0 minimum deposit (Fusion): structurally the most accessible entry point in the ASIC desk universe
- $200 minimum deposit (IC): a moderate floor, consistent with the broader institutional-positioning premium
- 30:1 ASIC leverage cap: the regulatory floor for retail clients, applies equally
- 500:1 offshore leverage: the upper bound on the offshore entities, equivalent on both
The route is decided. The edge is the macro read.
A broker is the route to the market. The macro read is what tells you when to take the trade. The MACRO MASTERY desk delivers the 07:00 London pulse, live FOMC and NFP coverage, and the daily institutional read every morning.
What would change this verdict
What would change the routing call
- A material reduction in IC Markets’ Raw Spread commission, particularly below $5 per round turn, which would erase the structural cost advantage
- Fusion Markets adding a CySEC-equivalent entity for EU clients, removing IC’s regulatory-route edge in Europe
- A material deterioration in Fusion’s execution quality during data prints, measurable across rolling six-month windows
- A regulatory action against either desk under ASIC, which would reset the baseline trust assumption
- IC Markets publishing a cTrader-only commission below $4.50, which would flip the cTrader-route call
Final takeaway
The fusion markets vs ic markets question has a clean answer on cost: Fusion Markets is the cheaper desk by $2.50 per round turn and the desk routes there for cost-sensitive flow without hesitation.
That call is built on a structural commission gap, not a promotional one, and it compounds across volume into a six-figure annual edge for serious accounts. IC Markets earns the premium on EM crosses, EU entities and data-print execution depth, which is a real but narrow set of use cases. For the majority of retail traders making a cost-based decision in 2026, Fusion Markets is the routed pick.
“The broker is the route to the market. The macro read is the edge. Pick the cheapest credible route, then go and earn the rest.”, Ken
In short
Fusion Markets beats IC Markets on all-in cost by $2.50 per round turn ($4.50 vs $7.00 commission on raw spreads). Both are ASIC-regulated. The desk routes scalpers, algos and intraday flow to Fusion. IC Markets earns the premium only on EM exotics, EU-entity requirements, or data-print execution depth.
Join MACRO MASTERY
The institutional macro intelligence desk. The exact stack a hedge-fund analyst runs every morning, delivered into a Discord community of serious traders.
07:00 London daily macro pulse. Live trade ideas with entry, target, stop, invalidation. FOMC, NFP, CPI live coverage as the prints land. BTC whale-flow signals. G7 central-bank rate pricing. Weekly performance scorecard, every win AND loss.
Welcome DM lands instantly. Non-US residents only for now, US partner Q3.
Educational analysis only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Manage risk against your own portfolio.
Related Reading
- Forex broker comparison 2026
- Best forex broker for macro trading 2026
- KenMacro route-checked broker methodology
- Full Tier-1 broker matrix
FAQ
Is Fusion Markets cheaper than IC Markets in 2026?
Yes. Fusion Markets charges $4.50 per round turn commission on its Zero raw-spread account versus IC Markets’ $7.00 on its Raw Spread account. Both desks publish equivalent raw spreads from 0.0 pips on EUR/USD during the London-New York overlap. The $2.50 per-round-turn gap is structural rather than promotional, meaning it has been the published rate since both desks aligned their raw-spread offerings, and it compounds materially across any meaningful trading volume.
Which broker has better execution, Fusion Markets or IC Markets?
For normal intraday flow, execution is functionally equivalent between the two desks. Both colocate in Equinix LD4 and NY4 and run ECN liquidity panels with tier-1 banks. The measurable difference appears during high-impact data prints, NFP, CPI, FOMC, where IC Markets’ deeper LP panel absorbs the order-flow spike with marginally less negative slippage on market orders. For scalp strategies that avoid the print window, the execution difference is too small to drive the routing decision.
Are Fusion Markets and IC Markets both regulated by ASIC?
Yes. Both Fusion Markets and IC Markets hold Australian Financial Services Licences under ASIC regulation, which imposes 30:1 retail leverage caps, segregated client-money requirements and negative balance protection. IC Markets additionally holds a CySEC licence for European clients and an SCB licence in the Bahamas. Fusion operates an offshore Vanuatu entity in addition to its ASIC entity. Under the ASIC regulatory floor, both desks offer equivalent client protections.
What is the minimum deposit on Fusion Markets vs IC Markets?
Fusion Markets has a $0 minimum deposit on both its Classic and Zero account tiers, which makes it the most accessible entry point among the major ASIC-regulated raw-spread brokers. IC Markets has a $200 minimum deposit on its Raw Spread account. For traders testing the route with smaller capital or running a graduated funding plan, Fusion’s structure has a clear practical edge. Both desks support unlimited demo accounts for strategy testing prior to live funding.
Which broker is better for scalping and algorithmic trading?
Fusion Markets is the cleaner choice for scalp and algorithmic strategies. The $4.50 round-turn commission versus IC Markets’ $7.00 produces a $2.50-per-lot saving that compounds heavily across high-frequency volume. A scalper running 50 round turns a day saves approximately $2,500 a month routing through Fusion. Both desks support EAs on MT4 and MT5 without restriction, and both colocate to the institutional standard data centres for low-latency algo execution.
Does IC Markets offer tighter spreads than Fusion Markets?
On the G7 majors, the raw spreads track each other closely, both averaging 0.0 to 0.1 pips on EUR/USD during peak liquidity. On exotic crosses (USD/ZAR, USD/MXN, USD/TRY), IC Markets generally shows tighter spreads because of its deeper liquidity panel and longer-standing relationships with EM-FX banks. On the major-pair flow that dominates retail trading, the spread tie is broken by the commission gap, which favours Fusion. On EM exotics, IC Markets earns its higher commission through tighter blended cost.
Which broker has the better platforms?
Both Fusion Markets and IC Markets offer MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, cTrader and TradingView integration. Platform parity is essentially complete. IC Markets’ cTrader implementation has marginally better polish on the Mac client, which matters for order-flow traders who prefer cTrader’s depth-of-market display. Fusion’s cTrader is functional and clean but slightly less polished. For MT4/5 routed flow the difference is invisible, and the routing decision returns to the cost calculation.
Can I trade cryptocurrency CFDs on both Fusion Markets and IC Markets?
Both desks offer crypto CFDs on the major pairs (BTC/USD, ETH/USD, XRP/USD and others) with leverage typically capped at 2:1 under ASIC retail rules and higher under offshore entities. Spreads on crypto CFDs are wider than on FX majors at both desks, reflecting the underlying volatility and liquidity costs. Neither desk carries a structural advantage on crypto CFD pricing, the routing decision on crypto-only flow comes down to which platform integrates better with the trader’s existing setup.
Is Fusion Markets safe to trade with in 2026?
Yes. Fusion Markets is regulated by ASIC, the Tier-1 Australian regulator that requires segregated client-money accounts, audited financials, and adheres to the international standards published by the Bank for International Settlements on broker conduct. The desk has operated since 2017 with a clean regulatory record under ASIC. For ASIC-routed retail clients, the broker safety profile is equivalent to IC Markets and other major ASIC-regulated desks. Offshore routing carries weaker client-money protections, which is a separate consideration.
Which broker should I choose for forex trading in 2026?
For the majority of cost-sensitive retail forex flow, Fusion Markets is the desk’s routed pick in 2026 based on its $4.50 round-turn commission versus IC Markets’ $7.00, equivalent ASIC regulation, and competitive raw spreads on G7 majors. IC Markets is the better route for EU-resident clients needing CySEC regulation, for EM-cross exposure where its deeper LP panel produces tighter blended cost, and for strategies that specifically depend on execution depth during high-impact data prints. Cost wins for the rest.
Sources: Broker fact base verified against published commission
Get the macro framework the desk actually trades
The same regime-first framework behind every call on this site. Free. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Continue reading
From the desk
Part of the Broker Finder hub, the desk’s living guide, kept current as markets move.
Not sure which broker fits you?
Answer a few quick questions and the desk will point you to the cleanest option for your country, platform and trading style. No cost, no pressure.
Only used to follow up on your request. No spam.