Compare IG Group and CMC Markets using the same evidence standard for regulation, risk, transparency, reputation, disclosure and contracting-entity protection.
What this pair helps you decide
This pair compares only fields supported by FXCN evidence. Check the contracting entity and regional conditions before interpreting score differences.
Separate UK and EU complaint and compensation conditions.
Compare verified jurisdiction coverage without treating licence count as quality.
Compare the entity that contracts with you, not the brand alone.
Markets requiring a separate entity check: UK / EU / AU / internationalData as of:
No continuously verified live spreads, commissions, slippage, withdrawal speed, minimum deposit or platform availability are claimed; a blank does not mean the brokers are equal.
IG or CMC Markets: two UK-listed brokers with different group structures
Both hold FCA, ASIC and MAS licences in FXCN's records; IG also has a US NFA record held by TASTYFX LLC. One structural difference: IG's UK and Australian licences are both held by IG Markets Limited, while CMC uses two companies, CMC Markets UK plc and CMC Markets Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. For UK residents, a useful like-for-like comparison is the retail loss percentage each must publish.
Licence data from FXCN records (dates in table). Rules checked 11 October 2026. This page recommends neither firm.
1. Which company is likely to serve you FXCN records
If you live in
IG entity recorded
CMC Markets entity recorded
United Kingdom
IG Markets Limited, FRN 195355
CMC Markets UK plc, FRN 173730
Australia
IG Markets Limited, AFSL 220440
CMC Markets Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, 238054
Singapore
IG Asia Pte Ltd, 200510021K
CMC Markets Singapore Pte. Ltd., 200605050E (checked 9 Oct 2026)
United States
TASTYFX LLC, NFA 0509630 (checked 5 Oct 2026)
None recorded
Other dates: 30 August 2026.
2. Comparing like with like in the UK
Retail loss percentage. FCA COBS 22.5.6R requires each provider's risk warning to state the share of its retail accounts that lose money, recalculated quarterly over the previous 12 months. Compare the two figures on the firms' UK sites on the same day.
FXCN score. IG 90, CMC Markets 82 (algorithm v1). The gap mostly reflects licence count and tier; it is not a measure of execution quality. See methodology.
3. Checks before you sign
Confirm which jurisdiction your IG agreement uses,since IG Markets Limited is licensed in both the UK and Australia.
You contract with one of the licensed entities below, not with the brand. Protection differs enormously between jurisdictions — this section matters an order of magnitude more than spreads.
IG Group
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: IG Markets Limited
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: IG Markets Limited
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
MAST1 Singapore · MAS Entity: IG Asia Pte Ltd
1:20
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Not recorded
NFAT1 United States · NFA / CFTC Entity: TASTYFX LLC
1:50
No investor compensation scheme; SIPC does not cover retail forex
Not recorded
CMC Markets
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: CMC Markets Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: CMC Markets UK plc
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
MAST1 Singapore · MAS Entity: CMC Markets Singapore Pte. Ltd.
1:20
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Not recorded
Leverage caps, compensation limits and negative balance protection are the jurisdiction’s general rules for retail clients, not a promise by any individual broker; professional clients are treated differently. The licensed entity that onboards you governs in practice. Source: ASIC Checked 2026-08Source: FCA Checked 2026-08Source: MAS Checked 2026-08Source: NFA Checked 2026-08
Verdict
Under our open-source scoring, IG Group (90.0) ranks above CMC Markets (82.0), a gap of 8.0 points. But scores are only a decision aid — what actually drives your risk is which jurisdiction the entity that onboards you sits in. Check the protection table above.
