Compare Pepperstone and FP 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.
Match the Australian entity, AFSL and permitted activities.
Compare the entity that contracts with you, not the brand alone.
Separate onshore protection from offshore-entity exposure.
Markets requiring a separate entity check: AU / EU / 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.
Pepperstone or FP Markets: two Australian brokers, one incomplete record
Both hold ASIC and CySEC licences in FXCN's records and Pepperstone also holds an FCA licence. FXCN's two FP Markets records lack the licensed company names and were last checked on 25 May 2026, older than most of our data. Until they are refreshed, confirm the FP Markets entity on the ASIC and CySEC registers yourself rather than relying on this page.
Licence data from FXCN records (dates in table). Rules checked 11 October 2026. This page recommends neither firm and makes no negative finding about FP Markets.
1. Recorded entities FXCN records
If you live in
Pepperstone entity recorded
FP Markets record
Australia
Pepperstone Group Limited, AFSL 414530 (checked 30 Aug 2026)
AFSL 286354, entity name not recorded (checked 25 May 2026)
EU / EEA
Pepperstone EU Limited, CySEC 388/20
CySEC 371/18, entity name not recorded (checked 25 May 2026)
United Kingdom
Pepperstone Limited, FRN 684312
None recorded
2. What is the same and what differs
In Australia both entities would be under the ASIC order (30:1 majors, 50% close-out, negative balance protection); in the EU both under ESMA-based rules with ICF cover. Where the rules match, compare total costs, platforms and service. Only Pepperstone has a UK entity in our records.
3. Checks before you sign
Get the entity name from the agreement.Especially on the FP Markets side.
Search AFSL 286354 or CySEC 371/18on the official registers and compare the name, or start with the licence check.
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.
Pepperstone
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: Pepperstone Group Limited
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
CySECT1 Cyprus · CySEC Entity: Pepperstone EU Limited
1:30
ICF, up to €20,000 per person
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Pepperstone Limited
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
FP Markets
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: First Prudential Markets Pty Ltd
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
CySECT1 Cyprus · CySEC Entity: First Prudential Markets Ltd
1:30
ICF, up to €20,000 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 2026-08Source: CySEC Checked 2026-08Source: FCA Checked 2026-08
Too close to call
The two differ by 2.0 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.
