City Indexvs
FP MarketsForex Broker Comparison
City Index and FP Markets face off on regulation, pricing, and platform depth. The axis pits safety and transparency against raw spreads and platform breadth, keeping you guessing what wins.
Who should choose City Index vs FP Markets?
Find out which broker best suits your trader profile.
Choose if…
Choose City Index if you want a $0 min deposit and access to a proprietary platform.
Choose if…
Choose FP Markets if you want true ECN pricing from 0.0 pips and access to MT4/MT5 and cTrader.
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
City Index vs FP Markets: Side-by-Side Forex Broker Comparison
Score
= highlighted score shows which broker leads in that category| Editorial score | 4.2/ 5 | 4.5/ 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Score Breakdown | ||
Trust & Regulation 40% weight | 4.6 / 5 | 4.6 / 5 |
City Index vs FP Markets Forex Broker Pros & Cons
Pros
FCA-regulated since 1983, backed by Nasdaq-listed StoneX Group
13,500+ markets including UK spread betting
TradingView integration for chart-based order execution
EUR/USD from 0.5 pips, competitive for a spread-only desk
FSCS protection up to GBP 85,000 for UK clients
City Index vs FP Markets: Detailed Category Breakdown
A closer look at the specific criteria each broker meets or misses within each scoring category.
1
City Index
criteria win
3
FP Markets
criteria wins
Highlighted rows show where the two brokers differ
| Criteria | City Index | FP Markets |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & Regulation | ||
| Top-tier regulator (FCA, ASIC, CFTC, etc.) | Pass | Pass |
| Segregated client funds | Pass | Pass |
| Negative balance protection | Pass | Pass |
| Compensation scheme (e.g. FSCS) | Pass | Pass |
| Fees & Spreads | ||
| Raw/ECN spreads available | Fail | Pass |
| No deposit fee | Pass | Pass |
| No inactivity fee | Fail | Pass |
| Transparent pricing page | Pass | Pass |
| Platforms & Tools | ||
| MT4/MT5 available | Pass | Pass |
| Proprietary platform | Pass | Fail |
| Mobile app | Pass | Pass |
| Advanced charting tools | Pass | Pass |
| Customer Support | ||
| 24/5 live chat | Pass | Pass |
| Phone support | Pass | Pass |
| Multilingual support | Fail | Pass |
City Index vs FP Markets: Frequently Asked Questions
The scores are close: City Index rates 4.2/5 and FP Markets rates 4.5/5. FP Markets 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.
FP Markets starts from 0 pips, tighter than City Index's 0.5 pips. Tighter spreads lower the cost per trade, which matters most for high-frequency and scalping strategies.
City Index has no minimum deposit, while FP Markets requires at least $100. This makes City Index more accessible for traders with limited starting capital.
Both City Index and FP Markets hold licences from top-tier regulators, indicating a high standard of regulatory oversight. Check each broker's specific regulatory bodies to confirm coverage in your jurisdiction.
For beginners, two factors stand out: City Index has no minimum deposit, removing the capital barrier entirely, and both brokers provide negative balance protection. Also compare demo account availability and educational resources before deciding.
City Index lists maximum leverage of 30:1, while FP Markets lists up to 500:1. Available leverage depends on your jurisdiction. EU retail clients under ESMA rules are capped at 1:30 on major forex pairs.
FP Markets charges $6 per lot on commission-based accounts. Commission details for City Index are not currently available. Check their website for up-to-date pricing.
City Index supports Proprietary Web/Mobile, TradingView, MetaTrader 4, while FP Markets supports IRESS, cTrader, MetaTrader 5, TradingView, MetaTrader 4. Both provide TradingView and MetaTrader 4. City Index has exclusive access to Proprietary Web/Mobile. FP Markets has exclusive access to IRESS and cTrader and MetaTrader 5.
