ZeinBot

Which Setup Is Cheaper? Full Trade Cost Comparison

Comparing accounts by spread alone always favours whichever setup hides its cost in a commission or a swap. On 0.10 lots of gold risking 1% of $1,000: a standard account at a 30-cent spread costs $9.50, or 95% of the risk budget, while an ECN at 12 cents plus $7 commission costs $9.10 — a 40-cent difference, not what the advertised comparison implies. Enter your own numbers below.

Which setup is cheaper for your method?

Enter your own numbers for both setups. Nothing here assumes any broker's data.

Setup A

Setup B

Setup A total
Setup B total
spread commission slippage swap

Computed from figures you supply; no broker data is assumed. Commission is charged per lot per side, so a round trip pays it twice. A positive swap is treated as a credit. Slippage is an expectation, not a guarantee — gaps can exceed it. Educational calculation, not financial advice.

This uses figures you supply and assumes no broker data. Slippage is an estimate rather than a guarantee, and gaps can exceed it.

The four layers you actually pay

The cost of a trade is not one number but four layers, three of which do not appear on screen before execution:

  • Spread — paid once, on entry.
  • Commission — per lot per side, so a round trip pays it twice.
  • Slippage — on entry, and frequently on exit too.
  • Swap — repeating every night.

The usual account comparison looks at the first layer alone, which is structurally incomplete: every setup shifts part of its cost into a different layer, so comparing spreads automatically favours whoever hid theirs elsewhere. Details in execution cost.

Why the share of risk is the decisive number

Nine dollars fifty sounds trivial, and out of context it is. But on a $1,000 account risking 1% — ten dollars — the cost has consumed 95% of the risk budget before price has moved at all.

This explains an observation many traders make without explaining: a strategy that is sound on paper loses in execution. Positive expectancy before costs can be negative after them, and it is the most common reason sound-looking systems fail — see expectancy.

So the tool shows the ratio rather than the amount alone, and computes how far price must travel merely to cover the cost.

Why compare two setups rather than cost one

Because the real decision is a comparison, not a measurement. Nobody asks "what does my trade cost?" in a vacuum; the question is always "which is cheaper for *my* method?" — and the answer changes with frequency, holding period and size.

An example from the tool: over three nights the ECN account wins by just 40 cents. In a same-day scalp — no swap at all — the gap widens in its favour, because the tighter spread applies across more trades with no nightly cost diluting the difference. Same setups, same broker, different answer because the method differs. See ECN accounts.

Frequently asked questions

Why does the tool not show specific brokers' numbers?

Because those figures change without notice, and publishing a stale spread as fact is misinformation rather than information. The tool takes your own numbers from your statement or contract specifications, so the result is correct for your account specifically rather than for an advertised average.

How do I know my expected slippage?

Compare your actual fills with the prices you wanted across dozens of trades and take the average. With no record yet, start with a conservative estimate and enable exit slippage, because an optimistic assumption here hides the largest part of the cost.

Does a positive swap mean profit?

It genuinely lowers the cost and the tool treats it as a credit rather than a charge, but it is not guaranteed income: its value moves with interest rates and can turn negative. Building a strategy on a positive swap means building on a number you do not control.

⚠️ Educational tool, not financial advice. Verify contract specifications with your broker. Trading is high-risk. Risk Disclosure