Raw spread, zero or standard account: $3.50 a side is 0.7 pips, and at IC the standard account's best spread only ties the raw one
The commission on a raw spread account converts straight into pips. At IC's own published figures, raw spread costs 0.8 pips all-in on EUR/USD and the standard account's minimum spread is also 0.8. At Exness the two headline commissions are a floor and a ceiling, which is why they cannot be compared from the page.
A raw spread account charges a commission and a tight spread. A standard account charges no commission and a wider spread. A zero account promises no spread at all on some instruments and charges something else instead. All three are selling the same thing, the cost of a round turn, and the only way to compare them is to put that cost into one unit.
The unit is pips.
Commission is spread in disguise
On a standard lot of a pair quoted in US dollars, such as EUR/USD, one pip is worth $10. So a commission converts straight into pips:
| Commission per side | Round turn | In pips on EUR/USD |
|---|---|---|
| $1.00 | $2.00 | 0.2 |
| $1.50 | $3.00 | 0.3 |
| $3.50 | $7.00 | 0.7 |
$3.50 a side is 0.7 pips. A raw account is only cheaper than a commission-free one when the commission-free account’s spread is more than 0.7 pips wider. That is the whole comparison, and every account page leaves you to do it yourself.
What IC publishes
Read from the account overview of IC Markets on 16 September 2026. The global site now serves from ic.com,
the same domain listed on the Cypriot licence of IC Markets (EU), which we covered in
approved domains:
| Account | Commission per side | Round turn | Spread from | Minimum deposit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Pro+ | $1.00 | $2.00 | 0.0 | $100,000 |
| Raw Pro | $1.50 | $3.00 | 0.0 | $5,000 |
| Raw Spread (MetaTrader) | $3.50 | $7.00 | 0.0 | $0 |
| Raw Spread (cTrader) | $3.00 per $100k | 0.0 | $0 | |
| Standard | $0 | $0 | 0.8 | $0 |
IC also publishes one average: on the Raw Spread account, “our average EUR/USD spread is 0.1 pips”.
At IC’s own figures, standard cannot win on EUR/USD
Put the two accounts into pips:
| Spread | Commission | All-in, EUR/USD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Spread | 0.1 average | 0.7 | 0.8 pips |
| Standard | 0.8 minimum | 0 | 0.8 pips at best |
Read the spread column carefully, because the two figures are not the same kind. Raw Spread’s 0.1 is an average. Standard’s 0.8 is a floor: the spread from which it starts, with the average not stated on the page.
That asymmetry is the finding. The standard account’s best possible spread equals the raw account’s average all-in cost. For standard to match raw on average, it would have to trade at its floor all the time, and the page does not claim that. On IC’s own published numbers, standard ties raw at best and does not beat it on this pair.
The cheaper raw tiers cost a deposit, not a fee
Raw Pro cuts the commission from $7 to $3 a round turn and Raw Pro+ to $2, and the price of entry is not a subscription but a balance: $5,000 and $100,000.
That changes the arithmetic. A trader already holding $5,000 saves $4 a lot, or 0.4 pips, at no additional cost. The step to Raw Pro+ saves another $1 a lot for $95,000 more on deposit, which is a decision about where to keep capital rather than about commissions.
At Exness, the two headline numbers point in opposite directions
Exness sells three professional accounts on its global site:
| Account | Spread | Commission per side |
|---|---|---|
| Pro | from 0.1 pips | none |
| Zero | from 0 pips, top 30 instruments | from $0.05 |
| Raw Spread | from 0 pips | up to $3.50 |
Look at the commission column. Zero is quoted as a minimum, “from $0.05”. Raw Spread is quoted as a maximum, “up to $3.50”. One figure is the cheapest case, the other the dearest.
They cannot be compared from the page, and putting them side by side is exactly the mistake the layout invites. The real commission depends on the instrument, and the page does not list it. The footnote adds that zero spreads on the top 30 instruments “may rise above 0 during high volatility”.
So “raw spread vs zero account” has no answer on the marketing page. It has one in the platform’s contract specifications for the instruments you trade, and nowhere else.
The leverage tells you which company this is
Both global pages advertise leverage of 1:5000 at IC and 1:Unlimited at Exness. A retail client under the FCA, ASIC or CySEC is capped at 30:1 on major pairs, set out in leverage limits by regulator.
Those figures therefore come from group companies outside those three regimes. The same brands run separately licensed entities with different account terms, and which one takes you is decided by where you sign up. It is also why the entity is worth checking before the account type: Exness (UK) holds no retail permission at all.
How to choose without guessing
Convert the commission to pips first. Divide the round-turn commission by $10 for a standard lot of a USD-quoted pair. $7 is 0.7.
Compare an average with an average. A “from” spread is a floor and says nothing about a normal day. If only one account publishes an average, as at IC, that asymmetry is the finding.
For a zero account, find the per-instrument commission in the platform’s contract specifications before comparing it with anything.
Check which entity the account sits with. The pricing above is from global pages carrying leverage no retail regulator permits.
What we checked, and what we didn’t
Account terms were read from IC’s trading accounts overview and Exness’s professional accounts page on 16 September 2026. The pip conversions assume one standard lot of EUR/USD with a pip value of $10, and the all-in figure uses IC’s own published average spread for the Raw Spread account.
We have not observed live spreads on either platform, and we have not reproduced Exness’s per-instrument commissions, which are not on the account page. The comparison holds for EUR/USD at IC’s stated average; on other instruments and at other times the spreads differ, and the only current source for them is the platform itself.