AMarketsvs
FBSForex Broker Comparison
The comparison pits two ECN-capable brokers with strong MT4/MT5 support against a larger instrument range and platform mix. They diverge on regulatory strength and client protections, shaping risk and costs.
Our Verdict
FBS winsby 0.1 pts
AMarkets and FBS are closely matched, with FBS providing negative balance protection that AMarkets does not.
No commercial relationship. The verdict and scores are entirely editorial. No payment influences this comparison.
Key Differences
- 1Instruments differ: AMarkets 250 vs FBS 550.
- 2Negative balance protection exists at FBS but not AMarkets.
- 3Regulatory setup differs: AMarkets uses SVGFSA, FBS lists CySEC, IFSC, FSCA.
Who should choose AMarkets vs FBS?
Find out which broker best suits your trader profile.
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
It’s a tie
Both equally suited
Both brokers offer spreads from 0.00 pips.
Best for safety & regulation
Recommended
AMarkets vs FBS: Side-by-Side Forex Broker Comparison
Score
= highlighted score shows which broker leads in that category| Editorial score | 3.8/ 5 | 3.9/ 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Score Breakdown | ||
Trust & Regulation 40% weight | 3.4 / 5 | 3.5 / 5▲ |
AMarkets vs FBS 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 FBS: Detailed Category Breakdown
A closer look at the specific criteria each broker meets or misses within each scoring category.
0
AMarkets
criteria wins
1
FBS
criteria win
Highlighted rows show where the two brokers differ
| Criteria | AMarkets | FBS |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & Regulation | ||
| Top-tier regulator (FCA, ASIC, CFTC, etc.) | Fail | Fail |
| Segregated client funds | Pass | Pass |
| Negative balance protection | Fail | Pass |
| Compensation scheme (e.g. FSCS) | Fail | Fail |
| Fees & Spreads | ||
| Raw/ECN spreads available | Pass | Pass |
| No deposit fee | Pass | Pass |
| No inactivity fee | Pass | Pass |
| Transparent pricing page | Pass | Pass |
| Platforms & Tools | ||
| MT4/MT5 available | Pass | Pass |
| Proprietary platform | Fail | Fail |
| Mobile app | Pass | Pass |
| Advanced charting tools | Fail | Fail |
| Customer Support | ||
| 24/5 live chat | Pass | Pass |
| Phone support | Pass | Pass |
| Multilingual support | Pass | Pass |
AMarkets vs FBS: Frequently Asked Questions
The scores are close: AMarkets rates 3.8/5 and FBS rates 3.9/5. FBS 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.
Both AMarkets and FBS start from 0 pips, making them equivalent on this metric. Compare commissions and account types to evaluate total trading costs.
FBS has $1, while AMarkets requires at least $100. This makes FBS more accessible for traders with limited starting capital.
AMarkets is regulated by SVGFSA. FBS is regulated by FSCA, CySEC. Confirm a broker's current regulatory status on the relevant regulator's public register before opening an account.
FBS 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 FBS lists up to 3000:1. 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, lower than FBS's $20 per lot. Lower commissions benefit active traders who execute many trades per day.
AMarkets supports cTrader, MetaTrader 5, MetaTrader 4, while FBS supports MetaTrader 5, MetaTrader 4. Both provide MetaTrader 5 and MetaTrader 4. AMarkets has exclusive access to cTrader.
