That is why the Exness vs Tickmill cost comparison on ForexReview does not simply place two advertised spreads side by side. It applies the same trading profile to both brokers, separates the major cost components, and only compares pricing records that are sufficiently compatible. The goal is not to decide which broker is universally better, but to show how two different pricing structures behave under the same assumptions.
Start With the Same Trading Profile
The comparison begins by fixing the trader’s assumptions: instrument, lot size, number of trades per month, average holding period and trade direction. Applying exactly the same profile to both brokers is essential because cost changes with volume and holding time. A trader placing a few 0.10-lot trades each month has a very different cost profile from someone trading several standard lots every day.
The example used in the comparison is EUR/USD with 0.50 lot per trade, 40 trades per month and no overnight holding. That equals 20 standard lots of monthly trading volume. Once the activity is normalized, the tool can translate spread and commission into estimated cash costs on a common basis.
Spread Cost Is Only the First Layer
For EUR/USD, one pip on a standard lot is approximately $10, so a 0.50-lot position has an approximate pip value of $5. The simplified calculation is spread × pip value × number of trades. Using the pricing records referenced by ForexReview, the Exness Standard structure uses an average spread basis and no separate commission in this comparison, while Tickmill Raw uses a much tighter spread structure plus commission.
This distinction matters because a raw spread should never be evaluated in isolation. Tickmill’s official Raw Account information states a commission of $3 per lot per side, equivalent to $6 for a completed round turn on one standard lot. Its official trading-cost documentation also explains that spread and commission are separate transaction-cost components. Exness, meanwhile, states that the spreads shown in its forex table are averages based on the previous trading day and can widen with volatility, liquidity, news and market conditions.
How the Exness vs Tickmill Example Works
With the default EUR/USD profile, ForexReview uses a 0.8-pip average spread for Exness Standard. At 0.50 lot, the pip value is about $5, so 0.8 × $5 × 40 trades = $160. The referenced Standard structure adds no separate commission, leaving the estimated transaction cost at $160 when no overnight cost is included.
Tickmill Raw uses a 0.1-pip typical spread, producing about $20 in spread cost. Its $3-per-lot-per-side commission equals $6 round turn; across 20 monthly lots, that adds $120. The estimated total is therefore $140. This is the clearest example of why 0.1 pip versus 0.8 pip looks like a huge difference until commission is added.
| Default EUR/USD profile | Exness Standard | Tickmill Raw |
|---|---|---|
| Spread basis | 0.8 pip average | 0.1 pip typical |
| Estimated spread cost | $160 | $20 |
| Estimated commission | $0 | $120 |
| Overnight cost | $0 (0 nights) | $0 (0 nights) |
| Estimated monthly cost | $160 | $140 |
The important lesson is not the final dollar difference by itself. The value of the methodology is that it shows where the cost comes from. A Standard account can embed more cost inside the spread, while a Raw account can show a tighter spread but recover part of the cost through commission.
Why Average, Typical and “From” Spreads Are Kept Separate
One of the most important safeguards in the ForexReview methodology is the distinction between average, typical and minimum pricing. A broker advertising “spreads from 0.0 pips” is describing a minimum that may occur under particular market conditions; it is not automatically comparable with another broker’s average spread.
ForexReview therefore keeps average, minimum and pending data distinct rather than forcing every published number into one ranking. This reduces the risk of comparing one broker’s best possible quote against another broker’s broader average and presenting the result as if the measurements were equivalent.
Overnight Costs Matter for Longer-Holding Strategies
The default Exness vs Tickmill example uses zero holding nights, so swap does not change that particular calculation. The broader True Trading Cost Calculator, however, is designed to account for overnight financing when the data can be normalized reliably. Conceptually, the total becomes spread cost + commission + supported overnight cost.
This is particularly relevant for swing and position traders. Two accounts with similar intraday transaction costs may produce different economics once positions are held for several nights. Account eligibility, swap-free conditions, instrument rules and legal entity can also affect overnight charges, which is why the methodology avoids inserting a precise-looking number when the underlying data is not sufficiently comparable.
Why Volume Changes the Result
Trading costs scale with activity. A small difference per lot may have little practical impact for an occasional trader but become meaningful for a strategy processing dozens or hundreds of lots each month. This is why the calculator asks for lot size and trade frequency rather than displaying only a generic “cost per trade” figure.
The right question is therefore not simply “Which broker has the lower spread?” A better question is: What would each pricing structure cost for the way I actually trade? Changing the instrument, lot size, number of trades, account family or holding period can change the estimated outcome.
What the Comparison Does — and Does Not — Measure
The tool is designed to compare transaction-cost structure, not to produce an overall broker ranking. Regulation, execution quality, slippage, platform reliability, funding conditions, customer support, country availability and account eligibility remain separate considerations. A lower estimated transaction cost under one scenario does not mean that one broker is automatically the better choice for every trader.
Used correctly, the Exness vs Tickmill example is valuable because it turns different pricing models into a common framework. Spread, commission and supported overnight costs are separated, normalized and then applied to the same activity profile. That gives traders a clearer view of the economics behind the account instead of relying on a single marketing number.
Use Your Own Trading Profile
A static example is useful for understanding the methodology, but the more relevant result comes from replacing the default assumptions with your own. Open the Exness vs Tickmill comparison to review the two pricing structures, then send the scenario to the True Trading Cost Calculator and adjust lot size, trade frequency and holding period to reflect your own strategy.
Data note: Broker pricing is variable and may differ by instrument, account type, legal entity and market conditions. Tickmill’s official Raw Account documentation states $3 commission per lot per side. Exness states that spreads shown in its forex pricing table are averages based on the previous trading day and may fluctuate. Calculator outputs are estimates for research and educational purposes, not investment advice.
Official references: Tickmill Raw Account · Tickmill Trading Costs · Exness Forex Pricing.