OANDA vs Pepperstone: US, UK, Australia and EU Routes

OANDA or Pepperstone: equal footing in the UK and Australia, different options elsewhere

Both brands have UK FCA and Australian ASIC entities in FXCN's records, so UK and Australian residents compare two firms under the same rules. Beyond that, OANDA adds US and Singapore entities and Pepperstone adds a Cyprus entity for EU clients: US residents have only the OANDA entity among the two, EU residents only the Pepperstone one.

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	OANDA entity recorded	Pepperstone entity recorded
United Kingdom	OANDA Europe Limited, FRN 542574 (checked 9 Oct 2026)	Pepperstone Limited, FRN 684312 (checked 30 Aug 2026)
Australia	OANDA Australia Pty Ltd, 412981	Pepperstone Group Limited, 414530
United States	OANDA Corporation, NFA 0325821	None recorded
Singapore	OANDA Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, 200704926K	None recorded
EU / EEA	None recorded	Pepperstone EU Limited, CySEC 388/20

2. What to compare where the rules match

UK: both under FCA COBS 22.5 and FSCS; compare each firm's published retail loss percentage and total costs.
Australia: both under the ASIC order; CSLR excludes FX and derivatives, so compensation is not a differentiator.

3. Checks before you sign

Confirm the entityin your agreement.
Search the register,or start with the licence check.
Compare costs and platformswithin your jurisdiction.

Sources and open items

FXCN records: FCA 542574, FCA 684312, NFA OANDA, CySEC 388/20.
Rules: FCA COBS 22.5; FSCS; ASIC; CSLR; 17 CFR 5.9.

Still to check Singapore retail rules.

Five-dimension scores

Dimension	Weight	OANDA	Pepperstone	Δ
Regulation	0.3	100.0	100.0	+0.0
Risk control	0.2	90.0	90.0	+0.0
Transparency	0.2	85.0	70.0	+15.0
Reputation	0.2	50.0	50.0	+0.0
Disclosure	0.1	50.0	50.0	+0.0

What you actually get at each of these two

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.

OANDA

Licenses compared	Retail leverage cap	Investor compensation	Negative balance protection
ASIC T1 Australia · ASIC Entity: OANDA Australia Pty Ltd	1:30	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Mandatory
FCA T1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: OANDA Europe Limited	1:30	FSCS, up to £85,000 per person	Mandatory
MAS T1 Singapore · MAS Entity: OANDA Asia Pacific Pte Ltd	1:20	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Not recorded
NFA T1 United States · NFA / CFTC Entity: OANDA Corporation	1:50	No investor compensation scheme; SIPC does not cover retail forex	Not recorded

Pepperstone

Licenses compared	Retail leverage cap	Investor compensation	Negative balance protection
ASIC T1 Australia · ASIC Entity: Pepperstone Group Limited	1:30	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Mandatory
CySEC T1 Cyprus · CySEC Entity: Pepperstone EU Limited	1:30	ICF, up to €20,000 per person	Mandatory
FCA T1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Pepperstone Limited	1:30	FSCS, up to £85,000 per person	Mandatory

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 2026-08 Source: CySEC Checked 2026-08 Source: FCA Checked 2026-08 Source: MAS Checked 2026-08 Source: NFA Checked 2026-08

Too close to call

The two differ by 3.0 points, below the 5.0 threshold — under our scoring that gap is not enough to say one is better. Look at the protection table instead: which jurisdiction the entity that onboards you sits in usually decides your real risk more than the total score does.