AMarketsvs
eToroForex Broker Comparison
Two brokers compete on trust, regulation, and platform ecosystems. The axis of tension centers on safety, transparency, and breadth of tools.
Our Verdict
eToro winsby 0.4 pts
eToro edges AMarkets on the editorial score (4.2 vs 3.8) and benefits from top-tier regulation and investor protection schemes.
No commercial relationship. The verdict and scores are entirely editorial. No payment influences this comparison.
Key Differences
- 1Proprietary platform and social trading available on eToro only.
- 2MT4/MT5 and cTrader access with raw spreads.
- 3Top-tier regulation: eToro has FCA/ASIC/CySEC licenses; AMarkets uses SVGFSA.
Verdict by Trader Profile
Which broker wins for each type of trader, based on costs, safety, platforms, and editorial scoring.
Best for low cost trading
Recommended
AMarkets offers tighter spreads from 0.00 pips vs 1.00 pips for eToro, reducing trading costs.
Best for safety & regulation
Recommended
AMarkets vs eToro: Side-by-Side Forex Broker Comparison
Score
= highlighted score shows which broker leads in that category| Editorial score | 3.8/ 5 | 4.2/ 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Score Breakdown | ||
Trust & Regulation 40% weight | 3.4 / 5 | 4.3 / 5▲ |
AMarkets vs eToro Forex Broker Pros & Cons
Pros
MT4, MT5, and cTrader all available
Competitive $6 round-turn ECN commission
Mature PAMM platform with full performance transparency
No inactivity fee
Client funds held in segregated accounts
Raw spread account available
AMarkets vs eToro: Detailed Category Breakdown
A closer look at the specific criteria each broker meets or misses within each scoring category.
5
AMarkets
criteria wins
4
eToro
criteria wins
Highlighted rows show where the two brokers differ
| Criteria | AMarkets | eToro |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & Regulation | ||
| Top-tier regulator (FCA, ASIC, CFTC, etc.) | Fail | Pass |
| Segregated client funds | Pass | Pass |
| Negative balance protection | Fail | Pass |
| Compensation scheme (e.g. FSCS) | Fail | Pass |
| Fees & Spreads | ||
| Raw/ECN spreads available | Pass | Fail |
| No deposit fee | Pass | Pass |
| No inactivity fee | Pass | Fail |
| Transparent pricing page | Pass | Fail |
| Platforms & Tools | ||
| MT4/MT5 available | Pass | Fail |
| Proprietary platform | Fail | Pass |
| Mobile app | Pass | Pass |
| Advanced charting tools | Fail | Fail |
| Customer Support | ||
| 24/5 live chat | Pass | Pass |
| Phone support | Pass | Fail |
| Multilingual support | Pass | Pass |
AMarkets vs eToro: Frequently Asked Questions
The scores are close: AMarkets rates 3.8/5 and eToro rates 4.2/5. eToro has a marginal edge in our scoring, but the difference is small enough that your specific priorities — fees, platforms, or regulatory jurisdiction — should guide the final choice.
AMarkets starts from 0 pips, tighter than eToro's 1 pips. Tighter spreads lower the cost per trade, which matters most for high-frequency and scalping strategies.
eToro has $50, while AMarkets requires at least $100. This makes eToro more accessible for traders with limited starting capital.
eToro holds top-tier regulation (FCA, ASIC, CNB), providing stronger investor protections. AMarkets may be regulated but does not hold top-tier status in our data. Verify regulatory status on each regulator's public register before depositing funds.
eToro stands out for beginners: it has a lower entry point and provides negative balance protection, which caps losses at your deposited amount. Also compare demo account availability and educational resources before deciding.
AMarkets lists maximum leverage of 3000:1, while eToro lists up to 30:1. Available leverage depends on your jurisdiction. EU retail clients under ESMA rules are capped at 1:30 on major forex pairs.
AMarkets charges $6 per lot on commission-based accounts. Commission details for eToro are not currently available. Check their website for up-to-date pricing.
AMarkets supports cTrader, MetaTrader 5, MetaTrader 4, while eToro supports Proprietary Web/Mobile. AMarkets has exclusive access to cTrader and MetaTrader 5 and MetaTrader 4. eToro has exclusive access to Proprietary Web/Mobile.
