fpmarkets Account Types & How to Open

FP Markets offers two core account types: Raw and Standard. At first glance, both look almost identical—they share the same minimum deposit of $100 AUD or equivalent and the same maximum leverage of 1:500. But the real difference lives in the cost structure, which ultimately shapes the trading experience.

The Raw account is clearly built for traders who prioritize ultra‑tight spreads and are willing to pay a transparent commission per trade. The Standard account, on the other hand, rolls the cost entirely into a wider spread, eliminating the commission line item. This makes it simpler to understand, but it may mask the true cost for larger trades.

Which one suits you depends entirely on your trading style, volume, and tolerance for fee complexity. In the sections that follow, FXCanary dissects each tier to help you decide not which account looks better on paper, but which is genuinely cheaper and safer for your strategy.

The Raw account markets spreads “from 0.0” pips, but that zero is only half the story. Every trade incurs a commission of USD $3.5 per side, meaning a round turn costs you $7. For a scalper who snaps up a handful of pips, the spread is nearly negligible, and the overall cost per lot can be very competitive—especially during liquid market hours.

However, real‑world spreads are rarely at the advertised minimum, and our data shows that 62 out of 78 reviews that mention spreads and fees expressed negative sentiment. Traders report sudden widenings during news events, with some claiming they were stopped out at losses far exceeding their expectations. While this is partly the nature of raw pricing, it also puts a spotlight on the liquidity providers and execution model behind the scenes.

Because the Raw account is typically associated with an ECN‑like execution, you would expect direct market access. FP Markets’ CySEC license is classified as an STP (Straight Through Processing) arrangement, which should minimise dealer intervention. But the ASIC licence is a Market Making (MM) licence, which means the broker may act as the counterparty depending on the entity you are onboarded under. This split is not always transparent to clients.

For a high‑volume day trader, the Raw account’s low spread can save substantial sums over time, but only if execution is fair and slippage is controlled. The volume of execution‑related complaints in our review base—many pointing to follower accounts closing at different prices or to orders triggered far from the last traded price—suggests that the advertised precision of the Raw account is not always delivered in practice.

If the Raw account feels like a high‑performance machine that occasionally misfires, the Standard account is the more pedestrian—and arguably safer—choice for casual traders. Spreads here start from 1.0 pips and contain all trading costs, with no separate commission.

This straightforward structure appeals to beginners who want to see exactly what they will pay per trade without performing mental arithmetic. For a small lot size, the difference between a 1‑pip Standard spread and a 0.1‑pip Raw spread plus $7 commission might be negligible or even favour Standard. For a 1‑lot EUR/USD trade, the Standard account costs roughly $10 round‑turn (1 pip × $10 per pip), while the Raw account might cost $7 commission + $1 spread = $8—a marginal saving.

But the cost equation flips dramatically as position size grows. A trader moving 5 or 10 lots will feel the commission burden much less than the spread markup. This is why experienced traders often migrate to Raw once they scale up—provided they trust the execution.

Our review analysis did not uncover specific fee‑related complaints unique to the Standard account. However, the general dissatisfaction with spreads across the board (62 negative mentions) suggests that even the wider spread is frequently perceived as floating higher than advertised, particularly in volatile markets or during rollover periods. So while the Standard account appears simpler, traders should still monitor the actual spread they receive against the 1.0‑pip benchmark and be wary that it can widen significantly without warning.

A $100 AUD (or equivalent) minimum deposit is deliberately low, positioning FP Markets as an accessible broker for retail traders who are just starting out or who want to test the waters with very small capital. On the surface, this is a friendly gesture that invites participation without demanding a large upfront commitment.

But a deposit that low, combined with leverage as high as 1:500, can be a dangerous cocktail. It allows an inexperienced trader to control a position worth $50,000 with just $100. The slightest adverse move wipes out the account, and the broker—who makes money on spreads and commissions—has already collected its fee on the way in and out. This is not unique to FP Markets, but the pairing of a tiny minimum deposit with extreme leverage is a classic recipe for rapid loss.

From a business perspective, a broker that thrives on $100 deposits is heavily dependent on high client turnover and a constant stream of new accounts. Our data shows that 77 out of 92 reviews concerning deposits and funding were negative, with complaints ranging from delays in crediting funds to deposits that never appeared. While the entry barrier is low, getting your money into the account may be more frustrating than the dollar amount suggests.

Traders should therefore view the $100 figure not as a sign of a broker’s generosity, but as a tactical threshold designed to minimise friction at signup while offsetting the risk of early churn. If you intend to deposit only the minimum, be aware that your trading costs as a percentage of capital will be very high, and any withdrawal friction later could further erode a tiny balance.

FP Markets advertises maximum leverage of 1:500 across both account types. This is eye‑catching but misleading if you assume it applies universally. Under European ESMA rules, retail clients with the CySEC‑regulated entity can only access leverage up to 1:30 for major forex pairs. In Australia, ASIC introduced comparable retail leverage caps in 2021. So where does the 1:500 come from?

The likely answer sits in the broker’s Seychelles‑based entity, whose registered address we found at Eden Plaza, Eden Island. This offshore company is not held to the same strict leverage limits and can legally offer 1:500 to clients outside the EU and Australia. Many of the negative reviews in our dataset that mention catastrophic losses appear to come from traders accessing this high leverage without full understanding of the risks.

Using 1:500 leverage means a 0.2% adverse price movement against your position erases your entire margin. It is a tool for extremely short‑term speculators who never hold positions overnight—and even then, slippage can be lethal. The volume of scam‑related claims (47 negative out of 49 mentions) often ties back to blown accounts facilitated by excessive leverage, where traders feel the broker’s platform conspired with the market against them.

Before you open an account, confirm which legal entity will onboard you and what leverage you will actually receive. If you are redirected to an offshore entity to obtain the 1:500, you are trading with a far weaker regulatory safety net. FXCanary always recommends that retail traders limit real‑money leverage to no more than 1:30 unless they fully understand and accept the consequences, irrespective of what the broker dangles.

Our structured data set does not include an explicit list of supported trading platforms. Based on industry norms, FP Markets typically offers MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, and sometimes cTrader, but this information was not present in the materials we received. Prospective clients should verify platform availability directly with the broker before committing.

The choice of platform matters because it directly affects order execution. The broker advertises fast execution, but our review analysis paints an inconsistent picture. Of 24 reviews that specifically mention order execution, 18 are negative, with some traders detailing specific timestamps and price discrepancies across follower accounts.

One recurring complaint describes a scenario where a master account closed a trade at 11:03:21, a follower closed at the same second, and another follower closed one second later—but with materially different outcomes, resulting in a collective loss of over $20,000. Such reports, if accurate, raise serious questions about the fairness of the execution logic, especially for social or copy trading setups.

The CySEC‑regulated entity operates under an STP licence, which implies orders should be passed directly to liquidity providers without dealer intervention. However, the ASIC Market Making licence allows the broker to take the other side of client trades. Without clarity on which entity you are trading with, you cannot be certain whether your order faces a genuine market or an internal dealing desk. This ambiguity is a risk factor that raw account data does not reveal.

A demo account is a standard feature among multi‑regulated brokers, allowing traders to test strategies and platform interfaces without risking real money. However, the specific documentation we reviewed for FP Markets does not explicitly mention a demo account. We consider it likely that one is available, but traders should confirm directly, as some offshore‑focused entities sometimes limit demo access to incentivise live deposits.

Base currency options are another gap in our data. The minimum deposit is quoted in AUD or equivalent, suggesting that accounts can likely be denominated in AUD, USD, EUR, and possibly others. The deposit methods include Bank, transfer, NETELLER, Skrill, and PerfectMoney, which often support multi‑currency funding, but conversion fees may apply if the account currency differs from your deposit currency.

In the absence of clear disclosure, we recommend asking the broker which base currencies are supported and whether they charge a conversion margin on deposits or withdrawals in a non‑equivalent currency. Such small fees can quietly erode a small account balance over time, especially when coupled with the payment processor commission that third‑party services like Skrill or Neteller often impose.

Opening an account with a regulated broker should be straightforward: submit your identity and address documents, pass a quick check, and start trading. For FP Markets, our review data suggests the reality is often much messier. The Account & KYC topic drew 57 mentions, and 53 of those were negative—a staggering 93% dissatisfaction rate.

Complaints range from simple delays to outright account blocking after requesting verification. Several reviewers reported being locked out of their accounts while support asked repeatedly for the same documents, sometimes dragging the process out for weeks. This is not merely an inconvenience; it freezes your capital and can cause missed trading opportunities.

The KYC friction also spills into withdrawals. With 73 out of 92 withdrawal‑related reviews being negative, a pattern emerges: traders who finally pass verification often find their withdrawal requests are delayed, rejected, or sent to the wrong account. This combination of harsh KYC and difficult withdrawals is a classic friction designed to keep funds inside the broker’s ecosystem.

To navigate this, we advise anyone considering FP Markets to submit KYC documents immediately after registration, before funding the account. Use a secure method to share documents, and keep a record of all correspondence. If verification drags on for more than a few business days, raise a formal complaint through the broker’s internal procedure and, if necessary, escalate to the relevant regulator (CySEC or ASIC depending on the entity). The high negativity around account opening is a genuine risk, and you should not treat it as a mere formality.