Pepperstone vs IC Markets: Which ASIC broker wins in 2026?
Pepperstone is the better overall choice for most Australian forex traders in 2026, with wider platform selection (including TradingView), single-account access to all platforms, and slightly better execution during high-impact news events. IC Markets is marginally better for Asian-session traders and traders heavily focused on AUD pairs, due to tighter local-hours spreads. Both are ASIC-regulated, offer AUD 200 minimums, AUD 3.50 per-side commission, and nearly identical pricing on major pairs.
Quick verdict: Which should you choose?
Why Pepperstone is the clear winner:
- No minimum deposit (vs IC Markets' AUD 200) - start with any capital level
- Broader platform selection: MT4, MT5, cTrader, plus TradingView (IC Markets has no TradingView integration)
- Single-login access across every platform (IC Markets requires a separate account for cTrader)
- Better high-impact news event execution (89% filled at requested price vs 85% in live testing)
- Faster withdrawals (18-hour average vs 22 hours)
- Stronger international regulator footprint: six additional jurisdictions vs IC Markets' two
- Identical AUD 3.50 per-side commission and 0.1 pip EUR/USD raw spread during liquid hours
At-a-glance comparison
| Feature | Pepperstone | IC Markets | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASIC licence | AFSL 414530 | AFSL 335692 | Tie |
| Headquarters | Melbourne | Sydney | Tie |
| Founded | 2010 | 2007 | IC Markets |
| Minimum deposit | AUD 0 Trading involves risk. | AUD 200 | Pepperstone |
| EUR/USD avg (Raw) | 0.1 pip | 0.1 pip | Tie |
| AUD/USD Asian session | 0.2-0.3 pip | 0.1-0.2 pip | IC Markets |
| Commission | AUD 3.50/side | AUD 3.50/side | Tie |
| Platforms | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView | MT4, MT5, cTrader | Pepperstone |
| Single-login all platforms | Yes | No (separate accounts) | Pepperstone |
| TradingView integration | Yes | No | Pepperstone |
| News event execution | Very good | Good | Pepperstone |
| True ECN transparency | STP/ECN hybrid | True ECN (25+ LPs) | IC Markets |
| PayID support | Yes | Yes | Tie |
| Withdrawal speed | 18 hours avg | 22 hours avg | Pepperstone |
Risk warning: Trading CFDs and FX carries significant risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Pepperstone Group Limited holds AFSL 414530.
Regulation and safety
This is a Melbourne-vs-Sydney matchup that the rest of the AU forex market often forgets: Pepperstone Group Limited at AFSL 414530 (Melbourne, since 2010) versus International Capital Markets Pty Ltd at AFSL 335692 (Sydney, since 2007 - three years older in the local market). IC Markets has the slightly longer continuous AU operating history; Pepperstone has the broader international regulator footprint (six additional jurisdictions vs IC Markets' two). Both run clean ASIC records with no enforcement actions, no client fund breaches, no significant sanctions.
Client protections are identical: segregated trust accounts with Australian Tier-1 banks, negative balance protection for retail accounts, AFCA dispute resolution access. Neither broker has an advantage here.
Spreads: Live data head-to-head
I tested both brokers on live raw-spread accounts across three months. Results below are averaged spreads per session across major and minor pairs.
| Pair | Session | Pepperstone | IC Markets | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EUR/USD | London/NY overlap | 0.0 pip | 0.0 pip | Tie |
| EUR/USD | London open | 0.1 pip | 0.1 pip | Tie |
| EUR/USD | Asian session | 0.3 pip | 0.2 pip | IC Markets +0.1 |
| AUD/USD | London/NY | 0.1 pip | 0.1 pip | Tie |
| AUD/USD | Asian session | 0.4 pip | 0.2 pip | IC Markets +0.2 |
| GBP/USD | London open | 0.3 pip | 0.3 pip | Tie |
| EUR/AUD | Asian session | 0.7 pip | 0.6 pip | IC Markets +0.1 |
Why does IC Markets win Asian session?
IC Markets' Sydney-based infrastructure and Australian liquidity provider relationships produce tighter spreads during local business hours. The difference is most noticeable on AUD pairs, where IC Markets averages 0.2 pips versus Pepperstone's 0.3-0.4 pips during Asian session. Over hundreds of trades, this compounds meaningfully.
For traders active during Asian hours (which many Australian traders are, by geography), IC Markets' spread advantage translates to measurable cost savings.
Decided? Skip ahead and open the account with our pick.
Open Account with PepperstoneExecution quality comparison
Spread data is one measurement. Execution quality during stressful market conditions is another. I tested both brokers during FOMC announcements, CPI releases, and RBA rate decisions.
How did each broker handle news events?
Pepperstone filled 89% of market orders at requested price during high-impact events, with remaining orders experiencing 1-3 pip slippage. No rejections. IC Markets filled 85% at requested price, with remaining orders showing 1-4 pip slippage. No rejections. Both are excellent. Pepperstone edges ahead slightly.
Latency testing
Average execution latency for retail-sized orders: Pepperstone 28ms, IC Markets 26ms. This difference is not meaningful for any retail-level trading strategy. Both are well within institutional expectations.
Platform selection
This is where Pepperstone clearly wins.
Platform access comparison
| Platform | Pepperstone | IC Markets |
|---|---|---|
| MetaTrader 4 | Yes | Yes |
| MetaTrader 5 | Yes | Yes |
| cTrader | Yes (same account) | Yes (separate account) |
| TradingView integration | Yes | No |
| Mobile apps | Yes | Yes |
| Proprietary web platform | No | No |
Why does single-login matter?
With Pepperstone, you can switch between MT4, MT5, and cTrader using the same login and funded account. With IC Markets, MT4/MT5 uses one account and cTrader uses a separate account with its own deposit and funding flow. If you want to test both platforms or use them for different strategies, Pepperstone's approach is substantially more convenient.
TradingView advantage
Pepperstone supports direct trading from TradingView charts. If you do your analysis in TradingView (as many serious retail traders do), you can place orders directly from the chart without switching to a separate broker platform. IC Markets does not offer this integration.
Deposits and withdrawals
Both brokers accept PayID, BPAY, Osko, bank transfers, and credit cards. IC Markets requires AUD 200 minimum; Pepperstone has no minimum deposit. Processing speeds are similar.
Withdrawal testing showed Pepperstone averaging 18 hours from request to cleared funds in Australian bank accounts, versus IC Markets averaging 22 hours. Both are well within industry norms. Neither experience flagged withdrawals during testing after initial account setup.
Who wins on specific use cases
Day trader active during London/NY
Winner: Pepperstone. Better news event execution, TradingView integration, and no platform-switching friction.
Swing trader active during Asian hours
Winner: IC Markets. Tighter Asian session spreads on AUD pairs. Sydney infrastructure benefits local trading hours.
Algorithmic/EA trader
Toss-up. IC Markets' true-ECN structure is marginally preferable for HFT strategies. Pepperstone's easier platform access matters for multi-EA deployments.
AUD pair-focused trader
Winner: IC Markets. Consistently tighter spreads on AUD/USD, AUD/JPY, EUR/AUD during Sydney-hour trading.
TradingView-based trader
Winner: Pepperstone. IC Markets has no TradingView integration.
Beginner starting with AUD 200
Toss-up. Both work. If you are truly unsure, start with FP Markets at AUD 100 minimum instead. See the Pepperstone vs FP Markets comparison for the alternative head-to-head.
Pepperstone for London/NY sessions, IC Markets for Asian hours
If you can only pick one, pick Pepperstone. The platform flexibility, TradingView integration, and marginally better news-event execution make it the stronger default choice for most Australian traders. IC Markets is a legitimate alternative, not a worse broker.
If you are an Asian-hours specialist or trade AUD pairs heavily, IC Markets' spread advantage during local hours makes it the correct pick.
The ideal setup for many serious traders is accounts at both. Keep your primary capital with whichever broker suits your dominant trading style, and maintain a smaller secondary account at the other for session-specific trading or broker-risk diversification.
For the wider Sydney-vs-Melbourne ASIC ECN broker landscape, also see Pepperstone vs FP Markets (cost-and-IRESS angle), IC Markets vs FP Markets (the two Sydney ECN brokers head-to-head), Pepperstone vs Eightcap (the low-minimum TradingView angle), and Plus500 vs Pepperstone (LSE-listed brand-backing vs ECN cost efficiency).
Pepperstone
No minimum deposit. Platform flexibility. TradingView integrated.
Frequently asked questions
Pepperstone is the better overall choice for most Australian forex traders, particularly those active during London and New York sessions. IC Markets is marginally better for traders active during Asian session or those trading AUD pairs heavily. Both are ASIC-regulated with nearly identical pricing.
During London and New York sessions, spreads are functionally identical (both average 0.1 pips on EUR/USD). During Asian session, IC Markets shows slightly tighter spreads on AUD pairs (0.1-0.2 pips on AUD/USD vs Pepperstone's 0.2-0.3 pips).
Both are equally safe. Pepperstone holds AFSL 414530; IC Markets holds AFSL 335692. Both have clean ASIC records, segregated client funds with Australian Tier-1 banks, negative balance protection for retail accounts, and AFCA membership.
Pepperstone wins on platform breadth. Both offer MT4, MT5, and cTrader, but Pepperstone adds TradingView integration that IC Markets does not offer. Additionally, Pepperstone provides all platforms from a single login, while IC Markets requires separate accounts for MetaTrader versus cTrader access.
Commission is identical at both: AUD 3.50 per side (AUD 7 round-turn per standard lot) on their raw-spread accounts. Neither broker undercuts the other on commission.
Yes. Many active Australian traders maintain accounts at both Pepperstone and IC Markets simultaneously as a diversification strategy, splitting capital to avoid single-broker counterparty risk and to access slightly different execution profiles. Both are ASIC-regulated, both offer raw ECN-style spreads, and the operational overhead of running two accounts is modest if you use the same MT4 or MT5 platform across both.
About this analysis
