OANDA vs Pepperstone — head-to-head

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.

Compare the entity that contracts with you, not the brand alone.
Compare verified jurisdiction coverage without treating licence count as quality.
Separate onshore protection from offshore-entity exposure.

Markets requiring a separate entity check: US / UK / AU / international Data as of: 2026-08-30

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.

Brokers A

OANDA

United States · 1996

80.0

Yellow · Caution

Offshore exposure
All onshore

Brokers B

Pepperstone

Australia · 2010

77.0

Yellow · Caution

Offshore exposure
All onshore

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.