The IC Markets Alternatives reviewed in this guide are:
1. Bullwaves
2. Pepperstone
3. FP Markets
4. Eightcap
5. Tickmill
6. OANDA
7. CMC Markets
IC Markets alternatives make more sense when each broker is tested against a real trading workflow rather than ranked on generic features.
Each alternative offers a different combination of platforms, account structures, pricing and trading tools. The most relevant option depends on which parts of the existing workflow need to remain familiar and which features the trader wants to change.
The profiles below begin with Bullwaves and then examine the other platforms individually. After those profiles, the comparison tables and supporting sections provide the additional detail needed to compare the shortlist consistently.
Readers can use the individual profiles to understand each option first, then continue to the later tables and practical sections for a more detailed comparison of the factors that matter to their own situation.
Bullwaves built its trading environment around MetaTrader 5 on web, desktop and mobile. Bullwaves add Bullwaves AI Insights, market information and social-trading features around that core.
The proposition is deliberately narrower than IC Markets. Bullwaves are not trying to offer every familiar third-party terminal. Bullwaves suit a trader who has already selected MT5 and wants to simplify the rest of the journey.
Lab hypothesis
Bullwaves can be the stronger fit when platform breadth has become platform clutter and the trader wants research, social features and execution organised around MT5.
Thirty-minute test
1. Open the Bullwaves MT5 demo route where available.
2. Add the five instruments used most often.
3. Rebuild one chart template.
4. Place a market order and two pending-order types.
5. Check the same account from mobile.
6. Open Bullwaves AI Insights and identify whether it contributes useful context to an actual watchlist.
7. Review the social-trading interface without allocating money.
The test is not complete if the trader merely recognises the MT5 layout. The surrounding workflow must save time or improve clarity.
Cost fit
Bullwaves' public help centre describes Classic, VIP and ECN tiers with different starting spreads and funding requirements. Those starting figures are not typical spreads and should not be compared directly with one IC Markets average.
For a fair comparison:
1. Choose the Bullwaves account actually offered in the eligible client’s portal;
2. Match it to either IC Markets Standard or Raw Spread based on cost structure;
3. Use the same symbol, exposure and holding period;
4. Include round-turn commission;
5. Include overnight financing if applicable;
6. Repeat the observation.
Compare the account, not the headline: inspect live conditions in the client dashboard and calculate one representative round turn before funding. Open a Bullwaves account
Where Bullwaves wins
1. A focused MT5 environment.
2. Bullwaves AI and social-trading tools around the terminal.
3. A simpler platform decision for someone committed to MT5.
4. One brand journey from research to client portal.
Where IC Markets wins
1. MT4, cTrader or TradingView requirements.
2. A trader who already depends on its automation infrastructure.
3. More detailed public average-spread tables on the reviewed global route.
4. A currently verified IC Markets account that is cheaper for the exact strategy.
Entity check
Bullwaves services are provided through Equitex Capital Limited, regulated by the Seychelles Financial Services Authority under securities dealer licence SD185. Bullwaves are not EU-regulated and must not be described as such.
The global IC site reviewed for this article identifies Raw Trading Ltd, also under the Seychelles FSA, with licence SD018. IC Markets operates through other companies as well. Compare the two actual agreements rather than assuming group-wide equivalence.
Bullwaves brings the main parts of the trading journey into one MT5-centred environment. Traders can use MetaTrader 5 on desktop, web and mobile, build watchlists, analyse charts, place market and pending orders, set protective levels and review account history from the same core platform.
The account experience is supported by AI Insights, market information and Social Trading. Together, these tools can help users organise research, follow market developments and study how other strategies are structured while keeping position size, margin use and risk decisions under their own control.
Before moving from research to live trading, users can compare the available account route, current spreads and commissions, instrument specifications and funding methods shown for their region. A practical first step is to recreate a normal watchlist in a demo account, test the orders used most often and confirm how the platform behaves across the devices that will form part of the everyday workflow.
Pepperstone is the most direct test when a trader likes IC Markets’ platform breadth and wants another multi-platform environment.
The reviewed Pepperstone material lists its own web and mobile platform, MT4, MT5, cTrader and TradingView, with regional and account differences. It separates Standard and Razor CFD pricing.
Lab hypothesis
Pepperstone can be the stronger alternative when the trader wants to move between MetaTrader, cTrader, TradingView and a broker-built interface without maintaining accounts across several providers.
Thirty-minute test
Build the same watchlist on two Pepperstone interfaces. Place a demo order on the primary platform, then locate and manage it from the backup device. Confirm whether the preferred TradingView route is available on the intended account.
This matters because “five platforms” is a marketing number until the trader proves that the required account, instruments and order actions work on the chosen pair.
Cost fit
Pepperstone’s reviewed account page describes Standard as spread-led pricing and Razor as raw spread plus fixed commission for relevant forex and gold trading. Platform and account currency can affect commission details.
The clean comparison is:
1. IC Markets Standard against Pepperstone Standard;
2. IC Markets Raw Spread against Pepperstone Razor;
3. Same forex pair or gold symbol;
4. Same lot size and observation window;
5. Same holding period.
Pepperstone may win the interface test while losing the cost test, or the reverse. Keep the results separate.
Where Pepperstone wins
1. Broad interface choice, including a proprietary route.
2. A credible cTrader or TradingView alternative where available.
3. Clear distinction between Standard and Razor.
Where IC Markets wins
1. A tested IC automation setup that does not justify migration.
2. The current global public spread table, which includes average figures for many symbols.
3. Any instrument or cost condition that proves better in a repeated live comparison.
Entity check
Pepperstone operates through several legal companies. UK, EU, Australian and other regional terms are not interchangeable. Use the agreement attached to the actual application.
FP Markets is useful because its reviewed public account page turns the comparison into a simple experiment.
The current regional page examined for this article presents Standard and Raw accounts. It publishes Standard spreads from 1.0 pips with no separate commission and Raw spreads from 0.0 pips with USD 3 per side, plus a USD 100 equivalent minimum deposit on that route. It lists MT4, MT5 and cTrader for Standard and adds TradingView on Raw.
Lab hypothesis
FP Markets can be the stronger alternative when the trader wants to compare two clear cost structures while retaining several familiar platforms.
The repeatability test
Create a seven-row log:
Repeat during the strategy’s normal session over at least three different days. If the strategy trades news, include an active period but do not assume a demo reproduces live slippage.
Where FP Markets wins
1. A particularly easy Standard-versus-Raw comparison.
2. MT4, MT5 and cTrader continuity on the reviewed offer.
3. TradingView on the relevant Raw route.
4. A published account threshold that may fit the user’s test budget.
Where IC Markets wins
1. No stated minimum deposit requirement on the reviewed global help page.
2. A more established workflow for the trader’s existing automation.
3. Any observed spread and commission result that remains lower after repeated measurement.
Entity check
FP Markets uses regional sites and group companies. The figures above describe the reviewed public route, not every account worldwide. Confirm the contracting entity, platform availability and funding currency before relying on them.
Eightcap belongs in the lab for a trader who wants to keep the comparison centred on MetaTrader and TradingView.
Its official platform material describes MT4, MT5 and TradingView, subject to region. Its account and instrument documents distinguish Standard and Raw pricing structures.
Lab hypothesis
Eightcap can be the stronger alternative if TradingView connectivity is important but a large platform menu is not.
Thirty-minute test
Use TradingView to build the actual chart layout, connect the intended Eightcap route and confirm that the required symbols are tradeable rather than merely chartable. Then open the same account in MT5 and compare:
1. Symbol naming;
2. Contract specification;
3. Order ticket;
4. Position and history fields;
5. Commission display;
6. Mobile recovery.
The purpose is not to decide which interface looks better. It is to confirm that switching between chart analysis and order management does not introduce position-size or symbol errors.
Cost fit
Compare Eightcap Standard with IC Markets Standard and Eightcap Raw with the relevant IC Raw account. Use current account documents and platform values, since commissions, base currencies and instruments can differ by entity.
Where Eightcap wins
1. A more concentrated MetaTrader and TradingView proposition.
2. A useful fit for traders whose workflow starts in TradingView.
3. Standard and Raw structures that can be tested separately.
Where IC Markets wins
1. CTrader.
2. The reviewed global average-spread tables.
3. A mature IC-specific Expert Advisor setup.
4. Any broader product or entity requirement not met by the Eightcap route available to the client.
Entity check
Eightcap’s legal pages vary by region. The Australian, UK, European and other offers must not be blended into one claim. Read the exact product disclosure and client agreement.
Tickmill offers a useful contrast because its current account overview combines established MetaTrader access with newer proprietary and TradingView routes.
The reviewed official site lists Classic, Raw, Islamic and demo account categories. Its platform navigation includes MT4, MT5, WebTrader, the Tickmill mobile app, Tickmill Trader and TradingView. The precise combination depends on account and region.
Lab hypothesis
Tickmill can be the stronger alternative when the trader wants to retain MetaTrader while testing a broader broker-built toolkit without choosing Pepperstone’s exact platform mix.
Thirty-minute test
Start with the current account page for the client’s region. Map each required interface to the account that actually supports it. Then test:
1. One MetaTrader order;
2. The same watchlist in the proprietary app;
3. TradingView connection if eligible;
4. Statement export;
5. Support access;
6. Funding and withdrawal instructions.
If the mapping requires several accounts or creates confusion, the broader toolkit has not improved the workflow.
Cost fit
Classic and Raw labels suggest different pricing approaches, but the current regional schedule controls. Record commission per side, typical spread for the strategy’s symbol, financing and conversion. Compare against the matching IC Markets structure.
Where Tickmill wins
1. Another route to combine MetaTrader with proprietary tools.
2. TradingView access on relevant current accounts.
3. A choice of Classic and Raw structures.
Where IC Markets wins
1. CTrader on the reviewed global offer.
2. A detailed, familiar automation environment.
3. Any cost or product requirement not matched by the relevant Tickmill entity.
Entity check
Tickmill’s official group footer names several companies and regulators. The company serving one resident may not be the company serving another. Save the agreement and licence details before funding.
Best for: a long-established route with proprietary and MetaTrader workflows.
OANDA is worth comparing when transparent regional terms and a choice between a proprietary interface and MetaTrader matter. Platform, product and pricing availability differs by legal entity, so the useful comparison is the exact account offered in your country.
Check the current platform, instruments, fees and legal entity for your country before opening an account.
Best for: a feature-rich proprietary trading platform.
CMC Markets is a relevant option for traders who value proprietary charting, research and order controls. Its strongest fit is usually the trader willing to adopt a broker-specific workflow rather than reproduce a MetaTrader setup exactly.
Check the current platform, instruments, fees and legal entity for your country before opening an account.
We selected these IC Markets alternatives by comparing the parts of the IC Markets experience that most often drive a genuine switch:
1. Platform and device access.
2. Account structure and total trading costs.
3. Suitability for manual, automated or proprietary-platform workflows.
4. Public information about the legal entity and regional availability.
5. Funding, withdrawal and account-management practicalities.
6. The specific feature each option can replace without creating a larger workflow problem.
Each broker had to solve a distinct use case and provide enough official product or legal information for that fit to be checked. The order reflects the purpose stated in this guide, not a universal ranking for every trader or country.
IC Markets is a demanding benchmark for this topic.
The reviewed global help centre describes two MetaTrader account structures: Standard and Raw Spread. Standard incorporates a spread mark-up instead of a separate commission, while the Raw Spread account publishes USD 7 per standard lot round turn on MetaTrader. The current spreads page provides both minimum and average figures for many instruments, which is more useful than a minimum alone.
The global platform menu includes MT4, MT5, cTrader and TradingView. The site also promotes automation, raw pricing and low-latency infrastructure. For a trader whose existing strategy is already stable on that setup, switching requires a measurable reason.
There are still valid reasons to investigate alternatives:
1. Reducing the number of platform choices;
2. Adding a different research or social layer;
3. Finding another legal entity available locally;
4. Changing the mobile workflow;
5. Comparing commission and spread structures;
6. Seeking a payment route supported in the client’s country.
The right question is not “Which broker is better than IC Markets?” It is “Which broker removes the constraint that affects this strategy?”
Check IC global help centre for the current details.
Run five tests before choosing one option.
Rebuild a normal workspace. Add the same symbols, indicators and order types. If the strategy uses an Expert Advisor, record the platform version, symbol suffix, contract size, minimum volume, server time and permissions.
Observe the same instrument and position size at the same time on more than one day. Add spread, round-turn commission, financing and conversion. Minimum spread is not the result of the test.
Confirm that the strategy does not rely on an IC Markets-specific symbol, server setting, commission model or data assumption. A successful installation is not enough. Order handling and risk calculations must also behave as designed.
Pretend the desktop connection fails. From the mobile app, locate the position, modify a stop, close an order and reach support. The backup workflow matters most when conditions are moving quickly.
Identify the company in the client agreement, then check the regulator, complaint route, deposit method, withdrawal return rules and account currency. A broker-group homepage cannot answer this for every client.
Review IC spreads and average-spread tables for the current details.
Do not invent a reason to move.
IC Markets may remain the better fit if:
1. The current Expert Advisor is stable on its server and symbols;
2. The trader relies on cTrader and is satisfied with the account;
3. The published Raw Spread commission and observed average spread suit the strategy;
4. The available legal entity and payment route have been verified;
5. The cost of reconfiguration exceeds the likely benefit;
6. The trader is reacting to a short-term spread observation rather than a repeated test.
The reviewed global help centre also states there is no minimum deposit requirement for opening an account on that route. That does not eliminate practical funding needs or trading risk, but it can be relevant to someone testing with a limited balance.
IC Markets should not be reduced to “another 0.0-pip broker.” Its detailed cost information and platform breadth are genuine strengths. Every alternative below must be judged against that baseline.
Confirm IC trading platforms for the current details.
Do not combine every result into a vague score out of ten. Use vetoes first.
If a required platform or Expert Advisor cannot be used safely, stop. A lower spread cannot repair a broken workflow.
If the client is not eligible, the complaint route is unacceptable or the agreement does not meet the user’s regulatory requirement, stop.
If the required payment method or currency is unavailable, calculate the conversion and transfer friction before continuing.
If the alternative only looks cheaper because of a minimum spread, repeat the test. A small intraday difference can disappear after commission or become irrelevant compared with overnight financing.
After vetoes, consider convenience. Research integration, social tools, platform choice and app design matter, but only after the trading and legal basics pass.
Never move solely because an affiliate list says one broker is “faster” or “cheaper.” Execution conditions vary with instrument, market, connection and entity. A public claim is not a personal benchmark.
Verify the current account, entity and regional terms before relying on any published figure.
See IC global homepage and entity disclosure for the current details.
We place Bullwaves first among these IC Markets alternatives for an eligible trader who has chosen MT5 and wants Bullwaves AI Insights and social-trading tools around that terminal.
Pepperstone is the first test for broad platform switching. FP Markets offers the cleanest account-cost experiment in this shortlist. Eightcap suits a MetaTrader and TradingView-focused setup. Tickmill is worth testing when MetaTrader and newer proprietary routes need to coexist.
IC Markets can remain the best fit for an automated trader whose current setup, cost and legal entity already pass the lab. The alternative must solve a measured problem before the migration is justified.
We place Bullwaves first for a focused MT5 workflow with Bullwaves-native research and social tools. Pepperstone, FP Markets, Eightcap or Tickmill may be stronger when another platform mix or account structure is non-negotiable.
Pepperstone is the closest in this shortlist for broad platform choice. FP Markets also covers MT4, MT5, cTrader and TradingView on relevant reviewed accounts. Verify the exact regional offer.
No. Raw Spread adds commission, while Standard incorporates a spread mark-up. The cheaper route depends on the instrument, volume, spread, holding period and other charges.
The file may be portable between compatible MetaTrader environments, but the strategy still needs testing. Symbols, contract sizes, server time, stops, commission and execution can differ.
No. Deposit threshold controls account access. Trading risk depends on exposure, leverage, stop distance, execution and the amount the trader can afford to lose.
Navigate the trading markets and discover a world of opportunities.
Bullwaves is a trading name of Equitex Capital Limited (Registration No. 8434948-1), a company authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (the "FSA", licence no. SD185) with legal registered address in CT House, office number 9A, Providence, Mahe, Seychelles and physical address in Office No. Al9C, Providence Complex, Providence, Mahe, Seychelles.
ETX Services Limited with company registration number HE455407, a company registered in Cyprus with registered address Archiepiskopou Makariou lll 160, 3026 Limassol is appointed as Independent Representative and Distributor.
Risk Disclaimer:
Over-the-counter derivatives are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing your initial capital rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how over-the-counter derivatives work and whether you can afford to take the high level of risk to your capital. Investing in over-the-counter derivatives carries significant risks and is not suitable for all investors.
When acquiring our derivative products you have no entitlement, right or obligation to the underlying financial asset. Equitex is not a financial advisor and all services are provided on an execution only basis. Information is of a general nature only and does not consider your financial objectives, needs or personal circumstances. Important legal documents in relation to our products and services are available on our website. You should read and understand these documents before applying for any Bullwaves products or services and obtain independent professional advice as necessary.
Regional Restrictions:
The information or services described on this website is not directed at or offered to residents of Belgium, Maldives, North Korea, United States, Afghanistan, Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Russia, Cuba, Libya, Nicaragua, Palestinian Authority/Gaza/West Bank, Venezuela and to jurisdictions on the FATF and EU/UN sanctions lists or any other person in any jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local laws or regulations. For more information please contact our support. Clients who onboarded via www.bullwaves.com can contact our support team at support@bullwaves.com.For complaints please email us at compliance@bullwaves.com
Contact us by phone: +44 7488 822576
Risk Warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Investors should consider whether they understand how CFDs work before investing.