Broker comparison · updated 2026-07-09
Capital.com vs FP Markets
Capital.com and FP Markets both publish broad regulator and fee information, but they differ on platform mix, account terms, and jurisdictional reach.
Our verdict
It depends on what you trade.
Capital.com is stronger for readers who want a clean public disclosure set, a simple funding page, and a proprietary web/mobile platform alongside TradingView and MT4. FP Markets is stronger for platform variety and raw-trading flexibility, with MT4, MT5, cTrader, and TradingView plus a published $100 minimum deposit for standard and raw accounts. On regulation, both are multi-entity brokers and terms depend on the legal entity you open with. Neither is available to U.S. residents, so the better choice usually comes down to platform preference, entity selection, and which fee structure fits the trading style.
Capital.com vs FP Markets at a glance
 Capital.com |
 FP Markets |
|
|---|---|---|
| Our comparison score | 73.5 / 100 | 67 / 100 |
| Minimum deposit | 10 USD/EUR/GBP cards; 50 EUR wire | $100 USD or equivalent |
| Platforms | Web, mobile, TradingView, MT4 | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView |
| Inactivity fee | Not published on page reviewed | US$10/month after 90 days |
| Deposit/withdrawal fees | No fee | No fee |
| Regulators disclosed | FCA, ASIC, CySEC, SCB | ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, FSA Seychelles |
| Founded | Not clearly stated on reviewed page | Established in 2005 |
| Typical EUR/USD spread | Not published on reviewed page | 0.00 shown live; typical 1.27 in FAQ |
| U.S. residents accepted | No | No |
marks the stronger side on that row. Key numbers were re-checked on 2026-07-09. Terms differ by legal entity and country — confirm on the broker's own legal pages before funding.
Score breakdown
How Capital.com and FP Markets earn their comparison scores, component by component — same methodology as every review on this site.
Capital.com vs FP Markets on fees and minimum deposits
Capital.com publishes a lower entry point on its global fee page: the minimum deposit is 10 USD/EUR/GBP for bank cards and Apple Pay, with a 50 EUR minimum for wire transfers; its fee page also says there is no deposit fee, no withdrawal fee, and no account opening or closing fee. FP Markets publishes a higher floor for its standard and raw MT4/MT5 accounts: $100 USD or equivalent, and its Australia FAQ says it does not charge deposit or withdrawal fees. FP Markets also publishes a monthly inactivity fee of US$10 on dormant accounts after 90 days of no activity, while Capital.com’s fee page does not show an inactivity charge on the page reviewed. For fee-sensitive smaller accounts, Capital.com has the edge; for larger accounts, the gap matters less than spread and commission structure.
Capital.com vs FP Markets on platform lineup
Capital.com offers a proprietary web platform and mobile app, plus TradingView and MT4; some official materials also mention MT5, but the platform page should be checked for the exact entity you are opening with. FP Markets is broader on platform choice: its site lists MT4, MT5, cTrader, and TradingView across desktop, tablet, and mobile. That extra choice matters if you want cTrader or a more traditional MT5-first setup. Capital.com’s stack is easier to describe and easier to use for readers who prefer a broker-built interface. FP Markets is more flexible for traders who already know which third-party platform they want. On platform breadth alone, FP Markets has the edge, while Capital.com is the simpler package.
Capital.com vs FP Markets on regulation and legal entities
Capital.com says its group includes entities regulated by the FCA, ASIC, CySEC, and the Securities Commission of The Bahamas, with the exact service entity varying by region. FP Markets likewise operates through multiple entities and lists ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, and Seychelles FSA references, plus a Saint Lucia-registered entity on some legal pages. That means protections, product scope, and onboarding terms are entity-specific for both firms. Capital.com’s regulator page is especially explicit about the legal names and license numbers, while FP Markets’ group and regulation pages are also detailed but spread across more regional sites. For a reader who wants the clearest single-page disclosure trail, Capital.com is a little easier to follow. For sheer breadth of licenses, FP Markets is competitive, but the multi-entity structure means you still need to verify the exact booking entity before funding.
Capital.com vs FP Markets on deposits, withdrawals, and account access
Capital.com publishes a straightforward funding policy: no deposit or withdrawal fees, with card and Apple Pay deposits starting at 10 USD/EUR/GBP and wires starting at 50 EUR or equivalent. FP Markets also says it does not charge deposit or withdrawal fees, but its funding page set is more fragmented across regions and methods, including cards, bank wire, Skrill, Neteller, and crypto mentions in some pages. FP Markets’ account-opening floor is higher, but it offers a broader mix of payment channels. Both brokers can change terms by region and legal entity, so a user should match the funding page to the entity shown in onboarding. If the priority is a low initial top-up and simple published terms, Capital.com is better. If the priority is more funding routes, FP Markets is stronger.
Capital.com vs FP Markets on research and market tools
Capital.com puts emphasis on platform-level tools, fee transparency, and in-app research rather than an especially wide public research library. FP Markets leans harder into market analysis and trader education, and its site highlights expert market analysis, educational material, and a larger instrument set. FP Markets also publishes a quoted EUR/USD spread on its live pages and a broader product list, including forex, CFDs, metals, indices, commodities, bonds, and more. Capital.com is still solid for trader-facing information, but FP Markets looks better equipped for users who want a multi-platform broker with more visible trading tools and a wider range of instruments. For research depth and instrument breadth, FP Markets has the edge; for cleaner consumer-style disclosures, Capital.com remains easier to audit.
Which broker fits you
- You want the lower published minimum deposit
- You prefer a proprietary web/mobile platform
- You want the clearest single-page fee disclosure
- You care more about simple onboarding than platform variety
- You want MT4, MT5, cTrader, and TradingView
- You want a published $100 minimum deposit
- You value a broader instrument and tool set
- You are comparing account types across multiple entities
Common questions
Is Capital.com or FP Markets better for low-deposit trading?
Capital.com is better on entry cost if you want the smallest published top-up. Its fee page shows 10 USD/EUR/GBP for card and Apple Pay deposits, versus FP Markets’ published $100 USD or equivalent minimum for standard and raw MT4/MT5 accounts. Both brokers say they do not charge deposit or withdrawal fees on the pages reviewed.
Does FP Markets have more platforms than Capital.com?
Yes. FP Markets publicly lists MT4, MT5, cTrader, and TradingView. Capital.com offers a proprietary web platform and mobile app, plus TradingView and MT4, with MT5 mentioned on some official materials. If platform choice is the priority, FP Markets is the broader package.
Are Capital.com and FP Markets regulated in the same way?
No. Both are multi-entity brokers, and the exact protections depend on the legal entity and country you open under. Capital.com publicly lists FCA, ASIC, CySEC, and Bahamas authorization on its regulator page. FP Markets publicly lists ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, and Seychelles FSA references, plus regional entity pages.
Is Capital.com available in the United States?
No. Capital.com’s public materials and regional restrictions exclude U.S. residents and U.S. citizens. FP Markets also says it does not offer services to residents of the United States. For U.S.-based traders, neither broker is an available option.