WikiFX

Rispondi

As an independent forex trader, caution is always my starting point when dealing with brokers, especially those like fxonet. My thorough review of their background highlights several red flags that weigh heavily into any cost analysis, including the total trading expenses when considering instruments like the US100 index. First, fxonet lacks any valid regulatory oversight and has been flagged for suspicious licensing and business scope. This is critical because unregulated brokers often do not provide upfront, transparent information about trading costs such as spreads, commissions, and swaps. While regulated brokers openly display all costs, I was unable to reliably confirm fxonet’s fee structure for indices, raising my own questions on their pricing integrity. Moreover, their extremely low WikiFX score, along with explicit warnings and a record of only 1-2 years in operation, further clouds any expectations around fair execution or cost consistency. In my experience, this means even if spreads or commission quotes seem attractive at face value, there's a risk of hidden fees, unexpected markups, or slippage that can make actual trading costs far higher than advertised. Ultimately, without transparent, verifiable cost data and with fxonet’s risk profile, I do not feel comfortable estimating the total costs for trading the US100 with them. As a risk-conscious trader, this level of uncertainty is a cost in itself—one I would avoid entirely until fxonet demonstrates real regulatory compliance and clear, trustworthy disclosure.