Saxo Bank vs Interactive Brokers — 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.

Distinguish bank, securities and derivatives-broker entities and their protections.
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: US / UK / EU / 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

Saxo Bank

Denmark · 1992

85.0

Green · Reasonable

Offshore exposure
All onshore

Brokers B

Interactive Brokers

United States · 1978

84.0

Yellow · Caution

Offshore exposure
All onshore

Five-dimension scores

Dimension	Weight	Saxo Bank	Interactive Brokers	Δ
Regulation	0.3	100.0	100.0	+0.0
Risk control	0.2	100.0	95.0	+5.0
Transparency	0.2	100.0	100.0	+0.0
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.

Saxo Bank

Licenses compared	Retail leverage cap	Investor compensation	Negative balance protection
FCA T1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Saxo Capital Markets UK Ltd	1:30	FSCS, up to £85,000 per person	Mandatory
FSA-JP T1 Japan · FSA Entity: Saxo Bank Securities Ltd	1:25	Client money must be held in segregated trust; no cash compensation cap scheme	Not recorded
MAS T1 Singapore · MAS Entity: Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd	1:20	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Not recorded

Interactive Brokers

Licenses compared	Retail leverage cap	Investor compensation	Negative balance protection
ASIC T1 Australia · ASIC Entity: Interactive Brokers Australia Pty Ltd	1:30	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Mandatory
FCA T1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited	1:30	FSCS, up to £85,000 per person	Mandatory
MAS T1 Singapore · MAS Entity: Interactive Brokers Singapore Pte. Ltd.	1:20	No statutory investor compensation scheme	Not recorded
NFA T1 United States · NFA / CFTC Entity: Interactive Brokers LLC	1:50	No investor compensation scheme; SIPC does not cover retail forex	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 2026-08 Source: FCA Checked 2026-08 Source: FSA-JP Checked 2026-08 Source: MAS Checked 2026-08 Source: NFA Checked 2026-08

Too close to call

The two differ by 1.0 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.