Pepperstone vs Fusion Markets: two Melbourne ECN brokers compared for 2026
Pepperstone and Fusion Markets are both Melbourne-based ASIC-regulated ECN brokers, and the choice comes down to cost versus everything else. Fusion Markets (AFSL 385620) is cheaper, full stop: AUD 2.25 per side (AUD 4.50 round-turn) on the Zero account against Pepperstone's AUD 3.50 per side (AUD 7.00 round-turn), a saving of about AUD 2.50 per round-turn lot. Pepperstone (AFSL 414530) wins on most other axes: more reliable execution during news, a four-platform stack that adds TradingView on top of MT4/MT5/cTrader, a longer operating history (2010 versus 2017), and a larger client base. Both have no minimum deposit, both support PayID and Osko, and both apply the same ASIC retail leverage caps. If commission per lot is the number that decides it, choose Fusion Markets. For execution, platform breadth and track record, choose Pepperstone.
Top picks for this comparison
Pepperstone
Tighter all-round package: reliable fills in fast markets, MT4/MT5/cTrader plus TradingView, and the deeper track record since 2010.
Fusion Markets
Cheapest ASIC commission at AUD 2.25 per side. If raw cost per lot is the deciding factor, Fusion wins on price.
Two Melbourne ECN brokers, and the question is cost or execution
This is one of the closer comparisons on the site, because Pepperstone and Fusion Markets are genuinely similar. Both are Melbourne-based, both hold ASIC licences, both run a real ECN model with raw spreads and a per-side commission, both support the MetaTrader and cTrader platforms, and both take PayID with no minimum deposit. The decision is not about regulation or platform type. It is about whether you optimise for the lowest possible cost or for the stronger all-round package.
Choose Pepperstone if:
- You want the more reliable execution during news and volatility
- You want TradingView trading on top of MT4, MT5 and cTrader
- You value a longer track record (since 2010) and a larger client base
- You want the broader resource set to grow into as a trader
Choose Fusion Markets if:
- Lowest commission per lot is your single biggest priority
- You trade at high volume where AUD 2.50 per lot compounds
- You are already comfortable on MetaTrader or cTrader
- You do not need native TradingView integration
At-a-glance comparison
| Feature | Pepperstone | Fusion Markets |
|---|---|---|
| ASIC licence | AFSL 414530 | AFSL 385620 |
| Headquarters | Melbourne | Melbourne |
| Operating since | 2010 | 2017 |
| Commission (per side) | AUD 3.50 | AUD 2.25 |
| Round-turn commission | AUD 7.00 | AUD 4.50 |
| EUR/USD spread (raw) | 0.1 pip avg | 0.0 to 0.1 pip |
| Platforms | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView | MT4, MT5, cTrader |
| Minimum deposit | AUD 0 | AUD 0 |
| AU deposits | PayID, BPAY, Osko | PayID, BPAY, Osko |
| Best for | Execution + platforms | Lowest cost |
Cost: where Fusion Markets wins
Fusion Markets exists to be the cheapest ASIC-regulated broker, and against Pepperstone it succeeds. The Zero account commission is AUD 2.25 per side, against Pepperstone's AUD 3.50 on the Razor account. On a round-turn lot that is AUD 4.50 versus AUD 7.00, so Fusion is about AUD 2.50 per round-turn cheaper before spread. Raw spreads on the majors are comparable at both, sitting near zero on EUR/USD during liquid hours, so the commission gap is the real difference.
What that means in money depends entirely on how much you trade. At 50 standard lots a month, Fusion saves roughly AUD 125 a month, or AUD 1,500 a year. At 200 lots a month, the saving is around AUD 500 a month, or AUD 6,000 a year. For a low-volume trader placing a few lots a month, the difference is a few dollars and other factors should decide. For a high-volume or scalping strategy, the cost gap is the whole argument, and it points at Fusion.
Platforms: where Pepperstone wins
Both brokers cover the platforms most traders use: MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5 and cTrader, all with Expert Advisor support and the usual third-party tooling. If you trade on any of those three, your experience will be similar at either broker.
The difference is TradingView. Pepperstone offers native TradingView integration, so you can place and manage trades directly from TradingView charts through the same account. Fusion Markets does not, so a TradingView-anchored trader has to bridge through MetaTrader instead, which works but is clunkier. If TradingView is central to how you trade, that single feature settles the platform question in Pepperstone's favour. If you live in MetaTrader or cTrader, the platform comparison is effectively a tie.
Execution and track record
Execution is harder to put a number on, but it is where Pepperstone's scale shows. It has operated since 2010, is one of the larger ASIC-regulated brokers by client base, and holds up well on fill quality and slippage during high-impact news, which is when execution actually matters. Fusion Markets runs a legitimate ECN model and is competent, but it is younger, since 2017, and smaller. For a trader who holds positions through data releases, that track record is worth something.
On regulation the two are equivalent. Both are Melbourne ASIC licensees with segregated client funds at Australian Tier-1 banks, negative balance protection on retail accounts, and AFCA membership. Neither has a regulatory issue on record. The seven extra years Pepperstone has been operating is a track-record advantage, not a safety advantage; both are safe to trade with.
Who wins on specific use cases
- High-volume or scalping: Fusion Markets. The commission saving compounds directly into your bottom line.
- News trading: Pepperstone. The stronger execution reputation matters most when markets move fast.
- TradingView users: Pepperstone. Native integration that Fusion does not offer.
- MetaTrader or cTrader purists: roughly a tie, so let cost decide, which points at Fusion.
- Beginners: either. No minimum deposit at both. Pepperstone has more to grow into; Fusion is cheaper from day one.
- Cost-obsessed traders of any volume: Fusion Markets, by definition.
Final recommendation
If you are choosing purely on price, Fusion Markets is the cheaper broker and the maths is not close at high volume. For everything else, execution during news, the TradingView option, the longer track record, and a deeper resource set, Pepperstone is the stronger all-round choice and is the reason it ranks higher on the best forex brokers in Australia list. Many active traders sensibly hold accounts at both: Fusion for cost-sensitive high-volume trades, Pepperstone for everything that benefits from its execution and platform breadth.
For the full picture on each, read the Pepperstone review and the Fusion Markets review. To see how each stacks up against the rest of the field, the best forex brokers Australia ranking covers all five of the major ASIC partners.
Frequently asked questions
Both are Melbourne-based ASIC-regulated ECN brokers, so the difference is narrower than most comparisons. Fusion Markets is better if your single priority is the lowest commission per lot. Pepperstone is better on most other measures: execution quality during volatile markets, platform breadth (it adds TradingView to MT4, MT5 and cTrader), and a longer operating history since 2010. For a high-volume cost-sensitive trader, Fusion. For most other traders, Pepperstone.
Fusion Markets. The Zero account charges AUD 2.25 per side, or AUD 4.50 round-turn per standard lot, against Pepperstone's AUD 3.50 per side and AUD 7.00 round-turn on the Razor account. That is roughly AUD 2.50 per round-turn lot cheaper. For a trader running 50 standard lots a month, the saving is about AUD 125 a month. At higher volumes it compounds further, which is the entire reason to pick Fusion over Pepperstone.
Yes. Both support MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5 and cTrader, with full Expert Advisor and algorithmic-trading support. The difference is TradingView: Pepperstone offers native TradingView trading integration, which Fusion Markets does not. If you want to place orders directly from TradingView charts, Pepperstone is the only one of the two that supports it natively.
Yes. Pepperstone Group Limited holds AFSL 414530 and has operated since 2010. Fusion Markets Pty Ltd holds AFSL 385620 and has operated since 2017. Both are headquartered in Melbourne, both hold client funds in segregated trust accounts at Australian Tier-1 banks, both provide negative balance protection on retail accounts, and both are AFCA members. On the regulatory baseline they are equivalent; Pepperstone simply has the longer track record.
Pepperstone has the stronger execution reputation, mainly because of scale and time in market. It is one of the larger ASIC-regulated brokers, has operated since 2010, and holds up well on fill quality during high-impact news. Fusion Markets is competent and runs a genuine ECN model, but it is a smaller and younger operation since 2017. For most traders the difference is marginal; for anyone who trades the news, Pepperstone is the safer default.
Either works. Both have no minimum deposit and both support PayID and Osko, so the entry friction is identical. Pepperstone has the broader platform choice and more resources to grow into, which suits a beginner who expects to develop. Fusion Markets keeps costs lowest from day one, which suits a beginner who is cost-focused and already comfortable on MetaTrader or cTrader. Neither is a wrong choice.
About this analysis
