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

Where exactly is the break-even between raw plus commission and a standard account?

At the point where the standard account's spread markup equals the commission expressed in pips. Above that markup, raw is cheaper; below it, standard is. With a $7.00 round turn on one lot the break-even markup is 0.70 pips. A 1 pip markup clears that comfortably; a 0.5 pip markup would not.

The break-even condition: raw plus commission is cheaper than standard when raw spread + commission in pips < standard spread. Because a standard spread is just the raw spread plus the broker's markup, the raw spread appears on both sides and cancels. What is left is: markup > commission in pips. That is the whole decision. The spread you actually get does not enter into it.

This is the result most articles never reach, and it is worth sitting with for a moment because it is counter-intuitive. Your measured spread does not determine which account type wins. It determines what you pay, which matters enormously — but it appears on both sides of the comparison and cancels out of the decision. What decides the account type is a comparison between two numbers your broker publishes: the markup it adds on the standard account, and the commission it charges on the raw one.

Applied to the published figures above: the standard markup on margin FX is 1 pip, and the largest commission equivalent across the platforms is 0.70 pips. One pip clears 0.70, so on margin FX the raw model is the cheaper of the two on that stated mechanism, by 0.30 pips on MT4/MT5 and TradingView and 0.40 pips on cTrader. That is a conclusion derived from two published numbers, not a ranking and not an opinion.

It also tells you what to look for at any other broker. Ask two questions and you are done: what is the markup on your standard account, in pips, on the instrument I trade? and what is the round-turn commission on your raw account, on that same instrument? A firm that cannot answer either in a sentence has told you something useful about itself.

One place the arithmetic stops being clean: commission does not scale perfectly linearly all the way down. Published schedules commonly note that trading 0.01 lots rounds commission up to a stated minimum per 0.01 lot, and that on MetaTrader 4 commission for both sides is calculated upfront and charged when the trade opens. Since a great many Indian accounts run at micro sizes, this matters here more than elsewhere: derive your real commission from your own account statement rather than from a per-lot rate. It does not change the direction of the answer at ordinary sizes.

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 $6,240 a year, roughly ₹5.5 lakh, 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 $1.80 a year, about ₹160, 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 calls service?

Raw plus commission, almost always. On a 12-pip target one lot is worth $120 gross, and a 0.90-pip all-in cost takes $9.00 of that, which is 7.5%. The same trade on a 1.20-pip standard spread costs $12.00, or 10%. Across 2,080 round turns a year that difference is roughly $6,240 on one lot — about ₹5.5 lakh.

This is where the account type stops being a rounding error, and it is the bridge between the arithmetic above and what a calls 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 $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, a large share 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 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 calls guide sets out a two-week protocol for measuring your own, and lowest latency brokers covers the execution-speed side of the same problem.

So: match the account to the target size, not to the label on the strategy. Our own trading calls are deliberately selective rather than high-frequency, which puts most subscribers in the intraday and swing rows below rather than the scalping row.

Which account type should I use for a swing calls 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 $930 on one lot, roughly ₹82,000. 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.

$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. The roll happens around 2:30 AM IST, which is why most Indian swing traders never see it happen and only notice it on the statement. Depending on the pair and the direction, that single roll can exceed the entire annual account-type difference across a handful of positions.

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. Published swap mechanisms price 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. No broker named on this page offers a guaranteed stop-loss — a stop is 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, on either account type, the difference between a raw and a standard spread is irrelevant next to where the market reopens at 3:30 AM IST on Monday. 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 $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 among Indian retail traders in particular, because micro sizes and low frequency are the norm rather than the exception.

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 IST 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.

• The markup is below the commission in pips. A broker with a 0.5 pip standard markup and a $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 full pip because one broker's is.
• Your raw account charges no commission on the instrument anyway. Index and commodity CFDs commonly carry no commission on raw accounts. 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 $18 — roughly ₹1,600 — 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. 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. If your strategy trades an exotic cross at 3:00 AM IST, or fires two minutes either side of a US release at 6:00 PM IST, 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, only one clearly names both models on its own site — and it is the one we route no Indian reader towards. Capital.com runs a single spread-only CFD model and states it charges no commission, so the raw-versus-standard question does not arise there. 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. None of these firms is SEBI-registered or regulated in India, and no figure below is an Indian retail-loss figure.

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 in how to verify a broker licence.

One more platform-level point, because it changes the commission and therefore the break-even: on a typical published raw schedule the same account costs $6.00 round turn on cTrader, $7.00 on MT4/MT5 and $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 broker for copy trading and EAs guide covers that constraint. If you are trading manually, it is a free 0.10 pips.

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

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. 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, licence SIA-F245. 79.75% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider — an international-entity figure published by that entity, not an Indian one. It is not SEBI-registered.

Base Markets runs exclusively on MT5 and is the broker through which our own trading calls are unlocked free, via a $400 deposit — about ₹35,000, priced in US dollars — that stays your own capital. 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 the FCA, ASIC or CySEC, which we say plainly rather than burying, and not an Indian licence. Its regulator does not mandate an ESMA-style 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. Its international entity publishes its own retail-loss disclosure: 84% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider — again an international-entity figure, not an Indian one. It is not SEBI-registered. No affiliate link to it is offered on this page.

Pepperstone is the one firm of the five that names both models on its own site — standard with costs inside the spread and a 1 pip markup on margin FX, and a raw account with raw spread plus commission — which is why its published schedule serves as the worked example above. It is stated here as fact and nothing more: Pepperstone Markets Limited, registered in The Bahamas (company 177174 B), regulated by the Securities Commission of The Bahamas under licence SIA-F217, is the entity that would onboard an Indian client. 79.6% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. This figure is entity-specific: Pepperstone publishes 72.9% under FCA and CySEC, 75.2% under BaFin, 79.6% under SCB and 75–95% under CMA. It offers no guaranteed stop-loss. It holds no SEBI registration, it is named on the RBI Alert List, and no sign-up link, affiliate link or call to action to it appears anywhere on this site's India pages — deliberately.

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 ($10 on one standard lot of a USD pair). 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.