Broker comparison · updated 2026-07-09
CMC Markets vs FP Markets
CMC Markets and FP Markets both publish broad platform and legal details, but they differ on deposits, entity structure, and fee treatment.
Our verdict
It depends on what you trade.
CMC Markets is the better fit if you want a long-established UK-listed brand with a clearly documented proprietary platform and broad instrument coverage. FP Markets is stronger for traders who want a lower entry point, a wider platform mix, and a more explicit raw-spread/commission setup. The decision comes down to account structure and jurisdiction: CMC Markets’ terms vary by entity and region, while FP Markets’ protections and product availability also depend on the legal entity you onboard with. For platform breadth and a lower stated minimum deposit, FP Markets has the edge; for proprietary platform depth and disclosure clarity, CMC Markets is hard to beat.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets at a glance
 CMC Markets |
 FP Markets |
|
|---|---|---|
| Our comparison score | 69.5 / 100 | 67 / 100 |
| Founded | 1989 | 2005 |
| Minimum deposit | Not published globally | AU$500 on AU FAQ |
| Spread from | 0.0 pips on FX Active | 0.0 pips on Raw |
| Inactivity fee | £10 / month in UK docs | US$10 / month in STL docs |
| Main platforms | Next Generation, MT4, MT5, TradingView | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView |
| Regulators shown | Local entities; FCA-linked brand | ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, Seychelles FSA |
| Instrument count | 12,000 on Next Generation | Not clearly published on official page |
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 CMC Markets and FP Markets earn their comparison scores, component by component — same methodology as every review on this site.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets on fees and trading costs
CMC Markets publishes two main pricing paths: its standard CFD pricing and FX Active, which advertises spreads from 0.0 pips on six major FX pairs with a fixed commission of $2.50 per $100,000 notional traded. Its UK cost disclosure also shows a monthly inactivity fee of £10 for GBP accounts, with equivalent charges in other currencies. FP Markets’ MT4/MT5 fee page says trading costs can be built into the spread, while its Raw-style pricing advertises spreads from 0.0 pips; the official Australia FAQ states the minimum deposit for Standard or Raw MT4/MT5/cTrader/TradingView accounts is AU$500. FP Markets’ Saint Lucia client agreement also shows a US$10 monthly inactivity fee after dormancy, so both brokers do charge inactivity in at least some entities. Because pricing and fees differ by legal entity, the exact schedule should be checked before funding.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets on platforms and tools
CMC Markets offers its proprietary Next Generation platform alongside MT4, MT5, and TradingView, and its platform pages say the proprietary stack gives access to about 12,000 instruments, while MT4 is much narrower at about 220 instruments. FP Markets also covers MT4 and MT5, but adds cTrader and TradingView, and its Australian pages also mention WebTrader and IRESS for share-CFD and DMA-style workflows in some regions. That makes FP Markets the broader platform shop overall, while CMC Markets has the stronger proprietary platform story. CMC Markets is more useful if you want one in-house interface with a large instrument universe; FP Markets is better if you care about picking the execution or charting stack that suits you best. As always, platform availability can vary by entity and country.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets on regulation and legal structure
CMC Markets’ official materials show a UK-rooted brand with local entity licensing and regulated-entity disclosures, and its public pages reference local-authority oversight by jurisdiction. FP Markets’ official site lists multiple regulators, including ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, and the Seychelles FSA, which makes the brand look more multi-entity and multi-region than CMC Markets. That wider footprint can be useful, but it also means the account terms, leverage, and protections depend heavily on which entity you open. CMC Markets is simpler to map from a disclosure standpoint, while FP Markets gives you more regulator labels to sort through. Neither setup removes CFD risk, and neither should be treated as a blanket safety guarantee. For compliance-conscious traders, the key question is not just the brand name but the exact legal entity on the account opening documents.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets on deposits, withdrawals, and payments
CMC Markets says it can take card and bank transfer funding, with some regions also supporting PayPal and PayID in Australia. Its main retail pages do not publish a universal minimum deposit, which makes onboarding less standardized but avoids overpromising a single number. FP Markets is more explicit: its Australian FAQ states a minimum deposit of AU$500 for Standard or Raw MT4/MT5/cTrader/TradingView accounts, and the brand commonly supports cards, bank transfer, Skrill, and Neteller. That clarity is useful, though it also means the threshold is not especially low. Both brokers operate with region-specific funding rules, so the payment methods and any costs may differ by entity. If you want a broker that clearly states the initial funding hurdle, FP Markets is easier to read; if you want to confirm terms case by case, CMC Markets keeps the public funding picture more open.
CMC Markets vs FP Markets on research and market coverage
CMC Markets leans heavily on its proprietary platform ecosystem and publishes large instrument counts, including about 12,000 instruments on Next Generation and roughly 2,220 on MT5 in one official disclosure. Its platform pages also emphasize charting, economic calendar tools, and integrated trading workflow. FP Markets publishes a solid platform-and-pricing stack, but its official materials are more focused on execution, account types, and fee schedules than on a deep proprietary research layer. If you want a broker where research tools are closely tied to a home-grown interface, CMC Markets has the stronger case. If you care more about choosing among third-party platforms and execution styles, FP Markets is still competitive. On pure research depth and breadth of in-house tooling, CMC Markets gets the edge.
Which broker fits you
- You want the stronger proprietary platform
- You prefer a cleaner public disclosure trail
- You want broader in-house instrument coverage
- You want cTrader and TradingView together
- You want a published minimum deposit
- You prefer multiple regulator labels and platform choices
Common questions
Is CMC Markets or FP Markets cheaper for active forex trading?
It depends on the account type and entity. CMC Markets publishes FX Active with spreads from 0.0 pips and a $2.50 per $100,000 commission, while FP Markets publishes Raw pricing from 0.0 pips and also uses commissions on some account types. Compare the exact legal entity, because fees and protections vary by jurisdiction.
Does CMC Markets or FP Markets have a lower minimum deposit?
FP Markets is more explicit on its Australian FAQ, which states AU$500 for Standard or Raw MT4/MT5/cTrader/TradingView accounts. CMC Markets does not publish one universal minimum deposit on its main retail pages. Because terms differ by entity, the final funding threshold can still vary by country.
Which is better for platform choice, CMC Markets or FP Markets?
FP Markets has the broader third-party stack because it combines MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView, and some region-specific options such as WebTrader or IRESS. CMC Markets is narrower on third-party platforms but stronger on its own Next Generation platform. The better fit depends on whether you want breadth or a deeper proprietary interface.
Is CMC Markets or FP Markets more transparent about regulation?
CMC Markets is easier to read as a single brand with jurisdiction-specific disclosures, while FP Markets publishes several regulator references across its entities, including ASIC, CySEC, FSCA, and Seychelles FSA. FP Markets offers more labels, but that also means you must check which entity you are actually opening. Transparency is good in both cases, but not identical.