
IUX (IUX Markets)

FBS
من يتفوق في أي جانب
خمس جولات، حقيقة قابلة للتحقق لكل جولة
الجولة تُحسم للوسيط الأفضل في المعيار المحدد. إذا تساوت الأرقام، تُعتبر الجولة تعادلاً — لا نخترع فائزين.
Cost
Decided by the tighter EUR/USD spread. Lower typical spread on the tightest retail account wins.
Trust
Decided by the count of Tier-1 licences. More Tier-1 regulators means stronger client-money protection.
Access
Decided by the lower minimum deposit. A lower bar to entry wins.
Platforms
Decided by the breadth of terminals offered. More supported trading platforms wins.
Record
Decided by the longer operating history. A longer operating record wins.
FBS edges it, 3–1
Both IUX and FBS offer high maximum leverage up to 1:3000 through their offshore entities, catering to traders seeking aggressive capital efficiency. Their platform offerings include MT5, with FBS additionally providing MT4. Headline figures reveal FBS with a tighter typical EUR/USD spread at 0.7 pips compared to IUX's 0.9 pips. Minimum deposits show a stark contrast; FBS requires only $5, while IUX sets its entry at $200. This indicates different accessibility thresholds for new traders.
In the trust round, IUX holds a distinct advantage with one active Tier-1 licence (ASIC) and one Tier-2 licence (FSCA). FBS, conversely, possesses zero active Tier-1 licences but one active Tier-2 licence (CySEC). IUX's FSA Saint Vincent and the Grenadines listing is a company registration, not an investment licence, a detail for prospective clients to note. For cost, FBS wins with its 0.7 pips typical EUR/USD spread and a $5 minimum deposit, significantly more accessible than IUX's 0.9 pips and $200.
IUX takes the trust round due to its active ASIC Tier-1 licence, providing a higher level of regulatory oversight. FBS clearly wins the cost round, offering a tighter spread and a substantially lower minimum deposit. While both provide high leverage options, FBS's accessibility makes it appealing for those with smaller capital. The choice ultimately depends on priority: IUX for enhanced regulatory security, or FBS for more favourable entry costs and spreads. Both present valid propositions based on their verified facts.
المواجهة التالية
مقارنات مباشرة أخرى
Pepperstone مقابل IC Markets
Australia's two raw-spread specialists, fact by fact
XM مقابل Exness
Two low-deposit giants weighed on cost and cover
OANDA مقابل FOREX.com
Two of the most heavily regulated names, compared
FxPro مقابل Pepperstone
London platform depth against Melbourne's tighter quote