Compare Saxo Bank and Interactive Brokers 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.
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 / 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.
Saxo or Interactive Brokers: multi-asset platforms, entity by entity
In FXCN's records Saxo has UK, Singapore and Japan entities; Interactive Brokers has US, UK, Australia and Singapore entities. Both are multi-asset platforms where forex and CFDs sit beside exchange-traded products, so protections can differ by product as well as by entity. UK and Singapore residents can compare like with like; US and Australian residents have an Interactive Brokers entity in our records and no Saxo 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
Saxo entity recorded
Interactive Brokers entity recorded
United Kingdom
Saxo Capital Markets UK Ltd, FRN 551422 (checked 10 Oct 2026)
Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited, FRN 208159 (checked 9 Oct 2026)
FX and CFDs: UK entities are under FCA COBS 22.5 (about 30:1 majors, negative balance protection); US retail forex uses 2% / 5% security deposits; Japanese individuals are limited to 25 times.
Securities: securities investor protection schemes cover securities and cash under their own rules; Canada's CIPF, for example, lists cash, securities and futures but not FX contracts on its coverage page. Each entity's scheme should be checked separately.
Compensation is per firm: the UK FSCS limit is £85,000 per eligible person, per firm.
Note "Bank" in a brand name does not give a trading account bank-deposit protection. The entities FXCN records for Saxo are capital-markets and securities companies.
3. Checks before you sign
Confirm the entity and jurisdictionin your agreement.
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
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Saxo Capital Markets UK Ltd
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
FSA-JPT1 Japan · FSA Entity: Saxo Bank Securities Ltd
1:25
Client money must be held in segregated trust; no cash compensation cap scheme
Not recorded
MAST1 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
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: Interactive Brokers Australia Pty Ltd
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
MAST1 Singapore · MAS Entity: Interactive Brokers Singapore Pte. Ltd.
1:20
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Not recorded
NFAT1 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 2026-08Source: FCA Checked 2026-08Source: FSA-JP Checked 2026-08Source: MAS Checked 2026-08Source: 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.
