The difference from slippage is not cosmetic
With slippage your order fills immediately at the best available price, so you get the trade at a different level. With a requote the order does not fill at all; a new price is offered and your confirmation is requested.
The practical difference is large: while you decide, price keeps moving, and you may miss the move entirely or accept a worse level seconds later. This makes requotes more disruptive than slippage for anyone trading around news, even though they look "fairer" for asking permission.
The same cost, distributed two ways
Your broker's execution model determines who stands on the other side of your trade and how your price is formed. It is a cost line rather than a contractual detail: the two common models distribute the same cost differently — one inside the spread, the other split between a tighter spread and an explicit commission.
The correct comparison is total cost on the reference account — 0.10 lots of gold — not either component alone, because comparing spreads in isolation favours whichever model hides its cost.
A worked example
You send a gold buy at 2,400.30 seconds before a data release. The broker returns with 2,401.10 and asks you to confirm.
An 80-cent difference is $8 on 0.10 lots — 80% of a $10 risk budget. Hesitate two seconds and the offer may become 2,402.00. The right decision here is not accept or decline but avoiding the situation: executing in that window is a sizing decision before it is a pricing one.
Common mistakes with this term
- Accepting a requote reflexively without recomputing its effect on reward-to-risk.
- Confusing it with slippage; slippage gives you the trade while a requote may cost you it.