Raw Spread vs Standard Account in Australia 2026: Which Account Type Should You Actually Be On?

Does trading more often change which account type is cheaper?

No, and this is the most common mistake in the debate. If raw plus commission is cheaper per round turn, it is cheaper at every frequency. Frequency and size change how much money the decision is worth, not which side of it wins. Multiply the per-round-turn difference by your lot size and your annual round turns.

You will read, on a great many pages, some version of "raw accounts are for high-frequency traders and standard accounts are for everyone else". As a rule of thumb about who should care, it is fine. As a statement about the arithmetic, it is wrong, and the distinction matters.

There is no frequency at which a cheaper-per-round-turn model becomes more expensive. Cost per round turn is a rate; total cost is that rate multiplied by a count. Multiplying both sides of an inequality by the same positive number does not change which side is larger. So frequency cannot flip the winner. Neither can position size, at any size above the micro-rounding threshold, because spread cost and commission both scale with lots.

What size and frequency do decide is how much money is riding on the decision — a completely different question, and the one that should govern how much time you spend on it. Using the 0.30-pip difference from the worked example above: annual difference = per-round-turn difference in pips × pip value at your size × round turns per year.

Read the corners rather than the middle. At the top right — one lot, eight trades a day — the account type is worth US$6,240 a year, on the order of A$9,000, and is one of the highest-return decisions available to you, because it costs nothing to make and recurs forever. At the bottom left — 0.01 lots, roughly one trade a week — it is worth US$1.80 a year, and any time spent agonising over it is time stolen from something that matters. Both are the same decision. Only the stakes differ.

The honest implication is one that pages funded by broker referrals rarely print: for a large share of retail traders, the account-type question is not worth optimising, and the correct answer is to pick whichever model you will reason about more clearly and go back to work.

Which account type should I use for a scalping signal service?

Raw plus commission, almost always. On a 12-pip target one lot is worth US$120 gross, and a 0.90-pip all-in cost takes US$9.00 of that, which is 7.5%. The same trade on a 1.20-pip standard spread costs US$12.00, or 10%. Across 2,080 round turns a year that difference is roughly US$6,240 on one lot.

This is where the account type stops being a rounding error, and it is the bridge between the arithmetic above and what a signal service actually does to you. The mechanism is that cost is fixed per round turn while the gross target is what varies — so the share of the move consumed by cost is inversely proportional to the target size.

Take a service firing eight calls a day, 260 trading days, one lot, 12-pip targets. That is 2,080 round turns a year and US$120 of gross value per winning trade.

Two things in that table deserve more attention than the headline. The first is that every column is bad. Even on the cheapest structure, 6.7% of the gross move is gone before the analysis is right or wrong, and that is before a single pip of slippage. A scalping service must clear a materially higher hit rate than its published one to survive contact with any account type, which is a fact about the strategy rather than the broker.

The second is that the US$6,240 gap is not a saving you bank. It is a change in the threshold the strategy has to clear. Both accounts pay the cost; raw simply moves the bar down by a quarter. If a service is only profitable on the cheapest possible structure, its edge is thin enough that slippage will finish what the spread started — and slippage, unlike spread, is not published by anyone. Our best broker for trading signals guide sets out a two-week protocol for measuring your own, and lowest latency brokers covers the execution-speed side of the same problem, which is a larger consideration from Australia than from Europe.

There is also a scheduling point specific to trading from here. A scalping service that fires during the London and New York sessions is firing between roughly 5pm and 2am AEST. If you are taking those calls manually after a workday, the account-type saving is being handed straight back in reaction time. Match the account to the target size — and match the strategy to the hours you can actually trade.

Which account type should I use for a swing signal service?

Either — the choice barely registers. On a 90-pip target the same two cost structures are 1.0% and 1.3% of the gross move, and at 310 round turns a year the gap is about US$930 on one lot. Overnight funding, including the triple swap charged on the Wednesday roll for T+2 pairs, will cost a swing trader considerably more.

Run the same arithmetic at swing scale and the urgency evaporates. Assume 310 round turns a year — roughly six a week — on 90-pip targets, one lot.

US$930 a year is not nothing. It is also roughly a third of a percent of the gross move, and it is being weighed against a cost the table does not show at all: overnight funding. A swing position held nine days pays swap nine times, and it pays it three times over on one of those days, because the Wednesday-to-Thursday roll carries a triple charge to cover the weekend on T+2 settlement. Depending on the pair and the direction, that single roll can exceed the entire annual account-type difference across a handful of positions.

Swing traders holding AUD pairs should pay particular attention here. Swap is driven by the interest-rate differential between the two currencies, so an RBA decision changes what your carry costs — sometimes turning a position that paid you into one that charges you — without anything happening to the price. That is a bigger and more variable line item than the entire raw-versus-standard question.

The practical consequence is a reordering of priorities, not a different account type. A swing trader should choose the account type on whichever basis they like — simplicity is a perfectly good one — and then spend the saved attention on the swap sheet, which is where the money actually is. Pepperstone's published mechanism prices swaps off an interbank overnight rate plus a percentage, and the effect compounds silently over a holding period in a way a one-off spread does not.

One thing no account type gives you: neither model protects a stop. Pepperstone offers no guaranteed stop-loss — its own documentation describes a stop as a trigger level for a market order, which is the technically accurate description and means your stop can and sometimes will fill worse than the level you set. Over a weekend gap — and Australians meet the reopen first, on Monday morning AEST — the difference between a raw and a standard spread is irrelevant next to where the market reopens. Any page implying guaranteed execution on a leveraged CFD account is wrong about how the product works.

When is a standard account genuinely the better choice?

When the markup is smaller than the commission in pips, when your raw account charges no commission on the instrument anyway, when size and frequency make the difference trivial — 60 round turns a year at 0.1 lots is roughly US$18 — or when you would simply rather reason about one number than two. Simplicity has real value.

A page that concludes "raw is always better" is either not doing the arithmetic or is being paid not to. There are at least five situations where a standard account is the right answer, and three of them are common.

The last of those is the one most worth testing rather than assuming, and it costs almost nothing to test: measure the spread you are actually quoted, during the hours you actually trade, for two weeks, and put that number into the first row of the worked example. Every other input on this page comes from a published document. That one comes from you, and it is the only one your broker cannot choose for you. If you trade during the Australian business day, this test will probably change your answer.

• The markup is below the commission in pips. A broker with a 0.5 pip standard markup and a US$7.00 round-turn commission on its raw account is cheaper on the standard account, by 0.20 pips, permanently. Never assume the markup is a pip because Pepperstone's is.
• Your raw account charges no commission on the instrument anyway. Pepperstone states that index and commodity CFDs carry no commission on Razor. Where no commission is charged, the account-type framing simply does not apply there.
• Your size and frequency make the difference trivial. From the table above, 60 round turns a year at 0.1 lots is about US$18 of annual difference. If that describes you, choosing the model you find easier to think about is a rational decision, not a lazy one.
• You want one number. A standard account produces a simpler P&L, a simpler journal, and a position-sizing calculation with one fewer moving part — and one fewer currency conversion line if your account is denominated in AUD. Commission also has to be modelled separately in most backtests, and a model that omits it silently overstates every result.
• Your raw spreads in your hours are not actually tight. The raw model only pays off when the underlying spread is genuinely narrow, which mostly means major FX in liquid sessions — that is late evening on the east coast. If your strategy trades an exotic cross during the ASX day, or fires two minutes either side of a scheduled release, the raw spread you get may be nothing like the raw spread advertised, and you will have added a fixed commission on top of it.

Which brokers let me choose between both account models?

Of the five brokers we track, Pepperstone is the one that clearly names both models on its own site: Standard, with costs inside the spread, and Razor, with raw spread plus a fixed commission. Capital.com runs a single spread-only CFD model and states it charges no commission. For the other three we could not verify a two-model structure from a primary page.

This is the account-type question rather than the cost question, and the two are genuinely different: a broker can be cheap and still give you no choice of model. Below is what we could read from each firm's own website. Where a firm blocks automated access to its pages we say so rather than filling the cell from a review site — an unverified cell is worse than an empty one.

Note also that account availability can differ between a brand's Australian entity and its offshore one. Confirm what is on offer on the site you are actually shown at application, and read the Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination that go with it.

The pattern worth noticing is that a choice of account model is not universal. On a single-model broker the question answers itself, and your comparison shifts from "which account" to "which broker", which is a different and larger decision — with the entity-checking method, including how to look up an AFSL on ASIC Connect, in how to verify a broker licence.

One more platform-level point, because it changes the commission and therefore the break-even: on Pepperstone's published schedule the same Razor account costs US$6.00 round turn on cTrader, US$7.00 on MT4/MT5 and US$7.00 on TradingView. The platform you pick moves your commission-in-pips between 0.60 and 0.70, which is a fifth of the whole raw-versus-standard gap in the worked example. If you are running automation the platform is usually decided for you — an MT4 expert advisor will not run on MT5 or cTrader — and our best MT5 brokers and best broker for copy trading and EAs guides cover that constraint. If you are trading manually, it is a free 0.10 pips.

All five brokers named here support MT5, so platform availability is rarely the binding constraint; the commission attached to each platform is. Base Markets alone lacks MT4.

Pepperstone's Australian entity is Pepperstone Group Limited, ASIC AFSL 414530. ASIC does not mandate the ESMA-style retail-loss disclosure, so no Australian percentage is published — and a page that shows one against an ASIC account has taken it from another jurisdiction. For labelled context only: Pepperstone publishes 72.9% under the FCA and CySEC, 75.2% under BaFin, 79.6% under the SCB in The Bahamas and 75–95% under the CMA in Kenya. Which entity onboards you decides which regime applies to your account. Offshore clients are onboarded by Pepperstone Markets Limited, company registration number 177174 B, regulated by the Securities Commission of The Bahamas under licence SIA-F217. Pepperstone offers no guaranteed stop-loss, no minimum deposit to open an account, and a minimum funding amount of US$10. This is an editorial link and not a recommendation. Visit Pepperstone

Capital.com runs one spread-only CFD model and states it charges no commission on trades, so there is no raw-versus-standard decision to make there. It supports MT4, MT5, TradingView and API access alongside its own web and mobile platforms. No Australian retail-loss percentage is published, for the same regulatory reason. Its international entity, Capital Com Online Investments Ltd (company number 209236B), is registered in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and authorised by the Securities Commission of The Bahamas under licence SIA-F245, and that entity publishes 79.75% — a Bahamian figure about a Bahamian book, given here as context and not as your number. Confirm the entity in the footer of the site you are shown. This is an editorial link and not a recommendation. Visit Capital.com

Base Markets runs exclusively on MT5 and is the broker through which our own signals are unlocked free. We could not verify a two-model account structure or a commission schedule from a primary page, so we make no cost claim about it here. It is a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius, company number 223521, regulated by the Financial Services Commission Mauritius under licence No. GB25204723 — a lighter regime than ASIC, the FCA or CySEC, which we say plainly rather than burying. An Australian who opens an account there is a client of an offshore entity, outside ASIC's leverage caps and outside AFCA. Its regulator does not mandate a retail-loss percentage and Base Markets publishes none; trading CFDs carries a high level of risk to your capital, and a Mauritian licence carries no FSCS, ICF or comparable investor-compensation protection. Visit Base Markets

ActivTrades publicly describes spread-based pricing, but we could not verify a raw-spread-plus-commission FX account from a primary page: activtrades.com returned 403 to our automated requests on its account pages. Its entities are ActivTrades PLC (FCA 434413), ActivTrades Corp (SCB, Bahamas) and a CMVM-regulated EU entity. ActivTrades Europe S.A. was removed from the CSSF register on 18 October 2024, so any page describing it as CSSF-regulated is out of date. ActivTrades publishes its own international retail-loss disclosure: 84% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with that provider — an international figure, not an Australian one. No affiliate link to it is offered on this page.

The ninety-second version: find your standard account's markup in pips, on your instrument (ask if it is not published). Find your raw account's round-turn commission — double any per-side figure. Divide the commission by your pip value in your account currency. If the markup is bigger than the result, go raw; if not, stay standard. Multiply the difference by your lots and your annual round turns to see whether the decision was worth the ninety seconds.

This page is general information, not personal financial advice, and does not consider your objectives, financial situation or needs. CFDs are leveraged products and carry a high risk of losing money rapidly.