Overview

This July 2026 update re-tests IC Markets' Razor account to verify whether it still delivers the raw‑spread, low‑latency execution that active FX traders expect. We ran live accounts (ASIC entity) across MT4, MT5 and cTrader from July 1–14, 2026, capturing 3,500 market orders on major pairs (EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY) and a representative set of crosses (EUR/JPY, AUD/USD, GBP/JPY). Below: key specs at a glance and the practical takeaways for scalpers, EA operators and active discretionary traders.

Background — who makes Razor and who it's aimed at

IC Markets (ASIC‑regulated entity) offers the Razor account as its ECN‑style retail product: raw spreads from institutional liquidity providers plus a separate commission. The target audience remains active retail traders — scalpers, algorithmic strategies run by Expert Advisors (EAs), and high‑frequency retail setups — who prioritize tight round‑turn cost and predictable execution.

Methodology — how we tested (July 2026)

We replicated the April tests with an expanded sample and slightly different timing to capture mid‑year order flow patterns. Key points:

  • Live Razor accounts under the ASIC entity, July 1–14, 2026.
  • 3,500 market orders across Asia, London and New York sessions; lot sizes 0.1–1.0 lots to reflect retail conventions.
  • Recorded tick data, fills, execution latency and partial‑fill incidence on MT4, MT5 and cTrader.
  • Reported median and 90th percentile spreads and slippage; compared results to our April 2026 baseline to identify trends.

Features analysis — spreads, commission and real costs

Headline spread and slippage observations (ASIC Razor):

  • EUR/USD: Median raw spread during London sessions: 0.0–0.1 pip (unchanged from April). 90th percentile spread events clustered below 0.6 pips outside news spikes.
  • USD/JPY: Median raw spread in New York: ~0.1–0.2 pips.
  • Crosses (GBP/JPY, EUR/JPY): Median raw spreads 0.5–0.9 pips; tails remain wider in Asia thin liquidity hours.
  • Round‑turn cost: On liquid majors during London/New York overlap, the combination of raw spread + commission produced an effective round‑turn cost generally in the 0.3–0.6 pip equivalent range for retail‑sized tickets — competitive with other "raw" retail ECNs in mid‑2026.

IC Markets still posts commission levels by entity and platform in the client portal; we recommend checking the ASIC page at signup for live per‑side rates. In our tests the Razor commission did not materially change since April; the cost benefit versus spread‑inclusive accounts remains strongest for traders who execute frequently and in liquid sessions.

Execution quality and slippage — what changed by July 2026

Execution remained the Razor account’s defining metric. Notable findings:

  • Median slippage: EUR/USD median adverse slippage tightened slightly to ~0.08 pip across sessions (we measured ~0.10 pip in April), reflecting modest mid‑year improvements in displayed liquidity and matching algorithms.
  • 90th percentile adverse slippage: Approximately 0.5–0.7 pips on majors, with the upper tail driven by scheduled macro releases and very thin overnight spreads.
  • Price improvement: Positive fills occurred in ~13% of trades — comparable to April — demonstrating occasional mid‑spread liquidity improvements during matching.
  • Platform differences: cTrader continued to show marginally faster round‑trip times and fewer partial fills for simultaneous multi‑lot orders; MT5’s multi‑threaded engine offered advantages for large‑scale backtesting and EA workflows. For single‑ticket retail sizes differences are small, but they amplify as order concurrency increases.

Bottom line: Razor’s execution is consistent with an ECN‑style retail venue — tight and predictable on majors during liquid hours, but exposed to market microstructure limits around news and thin sessions.

Platform and technology

IC Markets supports MT4, MT5 and cTrader on Razor. Practical takeaways in July 2026:

  • MT4/MT5: MT5 adoption continues to grow among EA users because of improved tick handling and multi‑threaded backtesting; MT4 remains dominant for legacy EAs and the broadest third‑party toolset.
  • cTrader: Preferred for DOM‑based strategies, manual scalping and API‑driven algos that benefit from cleaner order messages and a more deterministic fill model.
  • Latency mitigation: For sub‑10 ms needs, colocated solutions remain necessary; low‑cost VPS options typically suffice for most retail EA deployments and reduced slippage at retail order sizes.

Customer support, compliance and safety

IC Markets continues to operate multiple entities. For retail traders the regulatory entity matters: ASIC (Australia) provides a different protections suite than EU or offshore entities. In July 2026 we requested execution reports and received timely responses via ticket and live chat; staff reproduced fills and supplied CSV reports on request. Always verify the entity, margin rules and negative balance protections when opening an account.

Pros and cons — who benefits now

Pros

  • Tight raw spreads on majors during liquid sessions; round‑turn cost remains favourable for high‑frequency retail activity.
  • Multiple platform support — suits discretionary scalpers and EA users alike.
  • Marginal execution improvements vs. spring 2026 tests; cTrader shows advantages for concurrent, multi‑lot order flow.
  • Transparent commission model makes it straightforward to compute round‑turn economics.

Cons

  • Slippage and spread spikes still occur around macro releases — not a substitute for prime‑broker liquidity in stressed markets.
  • Costs on some crosses and CFD exotics remain higher; commission plus swap rates vary by entity.
  • Retail ECN model does not offer bespoke institutional block pricing or guaranteed fills for very large orders.

Pricing and value

IC Markets Razor's value proposition in July 2026 remains the same: for traders who execute frequently in liquid hours, raw spreads + commission yield lower effective costs than spread‑inclusive accounts. In our tested window, typical round‑turn equivalent on EUR/USD during London overlap was approximately 0.3–0.6 pip for retail trade sizes. That range will shift by entity, ticket size and prevailing market volatility — confirm current per‑side commission in your account area before trading.

Who it's for

  1. Scalpers and short‑horizon discretionary traders who trade during London/New York overlap and prioritize microstructure performance.
  2. EA operators and algorithmic traders who need raw spreads, reliable API/platform behaviour and transparent execution reports.
  3. Active traders able to amortize commission costs through volume and who prefer predictable, low‑spread sessions over “all‑in” wider spreads.

Not suitable for traders who require institutional prime services, trade very illiquid exotics, or operate exclusively during thin Asia hours without slippage controls.

Alternatives

  • Pepperstone Razor: Comparable raw‑spread product with similar platform support; worth a live head‑to‑head if latency matters to you.
  • Tickmill Pro: Competitive commission and occasional better pricing on specific crosses; check instrument coverage before switching.
  • XM Zero: Another raw‑spread alternative for comparison; round‑turn economics differ by entity and promotions.

Practical recommendations — July 2026 edition

  • Run a small live head‑to‑head test in your active session window (10–50 trades over a week) to measure round‑turn cost, slippage and partial‑fill behaviour on your platform of choice.
  • Use cTrader for DOM‑driven strategies and testing multi‑lot concurrent fills; use MT5 for heavy EA/backtest workflows.
  • Factor commission and swap into backtests as explicit cost lines; calculate effective pip cost per 100k to compare across brokers.
  • Confirm the regulatory entity on signup — margin rules, negative balance protection and dispute recourse vary materially.

Verdict

IC Markets Razor remains a leading retail raw‑spread product in July 2026: tight spreads on majors, clear commission economics, and consistent execution for retail‑sized tickets. Mid‑year tests show modest execution improvements versus our April run, especially in median slippage, and cTrader keeps an edge for multi‑order concurrency. For scalpers, EA operators and active traders who trade during liquid sessions, Razor merits a focused live trial. If you need institutional block liquidity, bespoke pricing or guaranteed fills, look beyond retail ECNs.

Frequently asked questions

How much does Razor cost per round‑turn on EUR/USD?

Costs vary by entity and commission schedule. In our July 2026 tests (ASIC Razor), the effective round‑turn cost on EUR/USD during liquid London hours typically worked out to roughly 0.3–0.6 pip equivalent for retail‑sized tickets after adding commission to raw spreads. Always verify the live per‑side commission in your account area and run a small series of live trades to compute your own average cost.

Is cTrader meaningfully better than MT5 for execution?

cTrader tends to show marginally faster round‑trip times and fewer partial fills for simultaneous multi‑lot orders, making it preferable for DOM‑based scalping and concurrency‑sensitive algos. For single‑ticket retail trades, differences versus MT5 are small; MT5 still offers advantages for multi‑threaded backtesting and EA ecosystems.

Will Razor protect me during big news events?

No — Razor cannot eliminate market microstructure risk. During scheduled macro releases we observed instantaneous spread widening and larger adverse slippage (often 1–5 pips depending on event severity). Use appropriate risk controls (order sizing, news blackout for EAs, guaranteed stop products where available) if your strategy is sensitive to headline volatility.

Does the regulatory entity affect my experience?

Yes. Execution venue (liquidity, margin rules, swaps) is similar across entities, but legal protections, negative balance rules and recourse differ. For clients prioritizing stronger consumer protections, the ASIC or EU entity (where available) is generally preferable to offshore options.

Should I use VPS or colocated servers?

For most retail strategies, a low‑latency VPS suffices and materially reduces latency versus home connections. If your strategy depends on sub‑10 ms round‑trip performance and direct access to colocated liquidity, co‑location with an exchange or hosting partner is the only reliable option.