XTB S.A. vs Capital Com SV Investments Ltd — head-to-head
Compare XTB S.A. and Capital Com SV Investments Ltd 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.
Separate UK and EU complaint and compensation conditions.
Compare verified jurisdiction coverage without treating licence count as quality.
Prioritise evidence date, current status and entity match.
Markets requiring a separate entity check: UK / 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.
XTB or Capital.com: the international entity is where they diverge
Both have CySEC and FCA entities in FXCN's records, so EU and UK residents compare two firms under the same rules. Capital.com adds an Australian ASIC entity, a Bahamas SCB entity and an unverified Seychelles record; XTB adds its Polish parent's KNF licence. If you live outside the EU, UK and Australia, ask which Capital.com company you would contract with: a Bahamas entity is not under EU or UK retail rules.
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
Capital Com SV Investments Limited, CySEC 319/17 (checked 10 Oct 2026)
United Kingdom
XTB Limited, FRN 522157
Capital Com (UK) Limited, FRN 793714
Australia
None recorded
Capital Com Australia Pty Ltd, 513393
Elsewhere
not verified
Capital Com Online Investments Ltd, Bahamas SCB SIA-F245; Seychelles FSA SD085 unverified
Note XTB's UK and Cyprus licences are held by companies with the same name, XTB Limited, in different jurisdictions. Check which one your agreement names.
2. Onshore and offshore protections
EU, UK, Australia: about 30:1 on majors, negative balance protection, and ICF, FSCS or (in Australia) no FX cover under CSLR.
Bahamas: SCB is an FXCN Tier 2 regulator; its retail rules are not reviewed on this page.
Seychelles: FXCN has not verified this record; do not treat it as protection.
3. Checks before you sign
Confirm the entity and its countryin your agreement.
Search the register,or start with the licence check.
Read leverage, close-out and negative balance terms.
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.
XTB S.A.
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
CySECT1 Cyprus · CySEC Entity: XTB Limited
1:30
ICF, up to €20,000 per person
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: XTB Limited
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
KNFT2 Poland · KNF Entity: XTB S.A.
1:30
KDPW compensation scheme (cap approx. €22,000)
Mandatory
Capital Com SV Investments Ltd
Licenses compared
Retail leverage cap
Investor compensation
Negative balance protection
ASICT1 Australia · ASIC Entity: Capital Com Australia Pty Ltd
1:30
No statutory investor compensation scheme
Mandatory
CySECT1 Cyprus · CySEC Entity: Capital Com SV Investments Limited
1:30
ICF, up to €20,000 per person
Mandatory
FCAT1 United Kingdom · FCA Entity: Capital Com (UK) Limited
1:30
FSCS, up to £85,000 per person
Mandatory
SCBT2Offshore Bahamas · SCB Entity: Capital Com Online Investments Ltd
No cap
No investor compensation scheme
Not recorded
FSA-SCT3OffshoreUnverified Seychelles · FSA
No cap
No investor compensation scheme
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: CySEC Checked 2026-08Source: FCA Checked 2026-08Source: FSA-SC Checked 2026-08Source: KNF Checked 2026-08Source: SCB 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.
