Checklist · Liquidity and Market Data
Liquidity Quote Comparison: Normalize the Same Trade
Normalize liquidity proposals by trade size, spread, commissions and execution terms using an illustrative worksheet with clear exclusions.
Published Updated
Published by FxTrusts, a supplier of brokerage and prop firm technology. Prepared with AI-assisted research and drafting; reviewed against the cited public sources. Examples are illustrative. Product links describe our services.
Quick answer
Compare liquidity proposals using the same instrument, quantity, currency, timestamp basis and execution assumptions. Put spread, commission, minimum charges and other agreed costs in separate fields. A smaller headline spread can be a more expensive or differently conditioned offer once those terms are included.
Define one comparison case
Choose a representative instrument and quantity without implying that one trade describes the whole business. State whether the quote is one-way or round-turn, which currency reports the result and whether prices are indicative or executable. Include expected account or credit arrangements where relevant. This makes the comparison reproducible and prevents one provider’s small-size headline from being compared with another provider’s larger-size executable quote.
Translate each charge into the same basis
A spread in pips, a commission per million and a minimum ticket fee cannot be compared as raw numbers. Convert each into the declared case’s currency and quantity. Record whether a commission is charged per side or for the complete round trip. Separate costs that apply every trade from monthly minimums or service charges. If a term is unclear, mark it unknown and request clarification rather than selecting the most favorable interpretation.
Keep execution terms beside the arithmetic
A normalized cost illustration is incomplete without fill conditions, rejection handling, last-look disclosure, supported size and settlement or credit terms. A low estimate does not establish better execution in practice. The FX Global Code’s disclosure context is useful for wholesale FX discussions, but it does not supply the contract or make a supplier compliant by reference. Keep the actual proposal version and written answers with the worksheet.
Use several scenarios without inventing a ranking
Repeat the worksheet for relevant quantities or sessions once the first case is internally consistent. A provider may be competitive for one size and less suitable for another. Treat a missing term as missing evidence, not proof that the supplier lacks a capability. This page supplies a comparison method; the existing liquidity-provider guide remains the broader owner for vendor selection and implementation responsibilities.
A hypothetical one-way cost comparison
Assume a 100,000-unit EUR/USD trade, 10 USD per pip and a deliberately simplified half-spread execution-cost benchmark. All commission figures below are per side. Proposal A has a 0.6-pip quoted spread and a 3 USD commission; B has a 0.8-pip spread and 1 USD commission. Under these assumptions A totals 6 USD and B 5 USD. Actual execution, financing and fixed monthly fees are excluded.
| Proposal | Half-spread illustration | Per-side commission | Illustrative total |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.6 ÷ 2 × 10 = 3 USD | 3 USD | 6 USD |
| B | 0.8 ÷ 2 × 10 = 4 USD | 1 USD | 5 USD |
Implementation checklist
- Fix quantity, instrument, currency and one-way or round-turn basis.
- Convert every fee into comparable units and identify minimums.
- Keep executable-size and execution-policy conditions visible.
- Mark unknown terms explicitly and retain the dated proposal.
Sources
These documents support the reference. Check the original publication for current requirements and the limits of its scope.
- FX Global Codewww.globalfxc.org
- MetaTrader 5 price datawww.metatrader5.com
- MQL5 symbol propertieswww.mql5.com
Continue with the broader guides
Connect this reference to platform selection and the wider operating workflow.