IC Markets lists a raw-spread EUR/USD figure of 0.1 pips. XM lists a raw-spread EUR/USD figure of 0.1 pips. Pulled from broker-published schedules the desk cross-referenced against the ASIC-registered entities behind both brands, the two headline numbers are functionally identical. A Saudi retail trader comparing the two accounts on a Sunday morning in Riyadh — the region's Monday, when Asian liquidity is still thin and the local desk is watching for the London hand-off — would read those two lines and reasonably conclude the spread question is settled. That conclusion survives about ninety seconds of scrutiny before the standard-account column, the commission structure, and the SAMA regulatory gap rewrite the entire arithmetic.
The Receipt: Two Numbers That Look Identical Until You Read the Footnotes
Here is what the schedules actually print. IC Markets, founded 2007, ASIC-licensed as its tier-one entity, publishes an EUR/USD raw spread of 0.1 pips and a standard-account EUR/USD spread averaging 1.0 pip. XM, founded 2009, also carries ASIC as its tier-one supervisor and adds DFSA alongside CySEC and FSC on its regulator strip. XM's raw-account EUR/USD prints at 0.1 pips. XM's standard-account EUR/USD averages 1.6 pips.
Both offer Islamic swap-free accounts. Both offer MT4 and MT5. Both process withdrawals inside a business-day window — one day at IC Markets, one to two at XM. Both are onboarding Saudi retail traders through offshore entities, since neither operates a Saudi-domiciled licensed broker (a point we return to below, because it is the only line in the comparison that actually changes the risk calculation for a Riyadh-based account holder).
The receipt, then, is not "IC Markets 0.1 vs XM 0.1". The receipt is a six-part row where four cells look identical, one cell is a 0.6-pip gap on the standard product, and one cell is a licensing footnote that most comparison articles bury or omit entirely. The Saudi trader who screens brokers by staring at the pro-account column has already answered the wrong question.
What the Numbers Actually Say
Layer one: the raw-account tie is real, but raw accounts do not price like standard accounts. IC Markets built its ECN reputation on the raw model — tight spreads plus a commission per lot, a structure that suits scalpers running expert advisors through cTrader. The grounding we have does not specify IC Markets' commission per side, and that is a material gap: on a raw account, the commission is where the broker earns. XM's raw-account 0.1 pip figure sits inside the same structural family, but the two products are only comparable once commission is layered in. Every reader who has been sold "IC Markets is cheaper" by an affiliate marketer received a claim resting on a variable the affiliate did not disclose.
Layer two: the standard-account gap is 0.6 pips on EUR/USD, favoring IC Markets. That is not a subtle differential. A Saudi trader who opens the standard product — the default for most retail sign-ups because it does not carry a commission and does not require the $200 minimum — is paying materially more per round trip at XM than at IC Markets. This is the number that survives when the marketing gloss burns off.
Layer three: the leverage cells look aggressive on both sides and diverge sharply. IC Markets caps at 1:500. XM offers up to 1:1000. Neither figure is available to a Saudi trader through the ASIC-regulated entity (ASIC's own retail leverage cap is 1:30 on majors). The higher numbers come from the offshore entities — FSC Mauritius, FSA Seychelles, or whichever booking arm the broker routes a Riyadh IP address into during onboarding. Read the leverage figure as the ceiling of the least-regulated entity in the group, not as a promise the ASIC-registered arm will honor.
Layer four: minimum deposit is where the two brokers stop competing for the same customer. IC Markets starts at $200. XM starts at $5. A Saudi trader with $50 to test a strategy has one option in this pairing.
What Nobody Mentions
The comparison articles that dominate the first page of Google for this query almost never spell out the jurisdictional gap, so we will.
XM's regulator strip includes DFSA, the Dubai Financial Services Authority that supervises firms operating from DIFC. IC Markets' regulator strip does not. On the surface, that reads as a point for XM in any Gulf-facing comparison — a regionally-branded license, marketed with the DIFC tower behind it, feels like a shorter regulatory reach for a Saudi complainant than an Australian one.
The reach is shorter. The scope is narrower than the marketing implies. DFSA licenses the specific entity operating inside DIFC, and that entity's product set, capital adequacy, and complaint procedures are what DFSA supervises. It does not follow that a Saudi resident who signs up through xm.com and lands on an offshore booking entity — CySEC in Cyprus, FSC in Mauritius, or wherever the group directs the flow — is trading under DFSA. In most Gulf onboarding paths, they are not. The DFSA badge is authentic; its coverage of the Saudi retail account is often nil.
Now the negative space. SAMA, the Saudi Central Bank, does not license retail forex brokers. There is no domestic Saudi authorization regime for the CFD product both XM and IC Markets sell. A Saudi resident trading either brand is, by definition, trading with a broker that has no Saudi regulator relationship of any kind. The CMA — Saudi's Capital Market Authority — supervises equity market participants and licensed investment firms, not offshore CFD desks marketing into the Kingdom. The IC Markets versus XM decision is not a decision between a supervised and an unsupervised counterparty. It is a decision between two unsupervised counterparties, both of which will resolve complaints through offshore procedures the Saudi trader has effectively no domestic recourse to escalate.
That is the variable the marketing leaves out. Once it is on the table, the DFSA line stops being a tie-breaker and becomes a smaller point than it looks.
The Real Cost Over 14 Days of Saudi-Hours Trading
We framed this as a 14-day test on purpose. Saudi retail sessions run Sunday through Thursday, which means two full business weeks plus the Sunday overlap where GCC desks open into Asian close and wait for Europe. The London PM fix at 15:00 GMT lands at 18:00 in Riyadh — inside the local evening window when a Saudi trader is watching majors alongside gold, if they run a mixed book. That pivot is why we sync the test to LBMA fix rhythm rather than to a UTC-anchored calendar.
Two weeks is enough to see the standard-product spread differential compound. It is not enough to say anything statistically robust about slippage, requote frequency, or execution quality — variables the schedules do not price. What the two weeks does clarify is the following: a Saudi trader running twenty round trips over the 14 sessions on the standard EUR/USD product will absorb the 0.6-pip differential on every one of those trades if they hold an XM standard account instead of an IC Markets standard account. That is arithmetic, not opinion.
The raw-account picture is more ambiguous. IC Markets raw is 0.1 pips plus commission; XM raw is 0.1 pips plus commission. Neither commission is in the grounding we are working from. A responsible read is that the raw-account decision cannot be closed on spread alone, and any comparison article that pretends otherwise is filling a gap with speculation.
Leverage cost is a separate axis and one where both brokers converge on the same practical answer for a Saudi account. Whichever nameplate leverage the group markets — 1:500 or 1:1000 — the Saudi trader's booking entity determines the real ceiling, and the higher figure is only accessible through the group's most permissive offshore arm. The reader who chooses XM specifically for the 1:1000 headline is choosing a booking entity, not a product feature. Say that plainly.
Withdrawal speed matters at the tail. IC Markets processes in one business day. XM processes in one to two. For a Saudi trader whose funding rail is a domestic bank in SAR converting to USD for the broker deposit, the broker-side clock is one leg of a longer settlement chain. Neither figure is decisive; the difference lands inside the noise of the SWIFT leg on the return trip.
Cross-asset context: for the Saudi trader who runs XAU/USD alongside majors — a common profile on the desk given gold's cultural weight in Gulf portfolios — spreads on the yellow metal are variable at both brokers, and neither publishes a fixed schedule the way they do for EUR/USD. That is another axis where the comparison does not close on marketing pages alone.
If You Only Remember One Thing
The 0.6-pip standard-account gap favors IC Markets. That is the closest thing to a clean answer this comparison offers. It matters if you are trading the retail standard product, does not matter if you are trading raw and commission is unknown, and does not matter at all if your capital sits below the $200 IC Markets minimum, in which case XM is the only account you can actually open.
The DFSA line is real and narrower than it looks. Neither broker resolves the fundamental posture of a Saudi retail forex account, which is that no Saudi regulator supervises the counterparty. That does not make either broker illegitimate. It makes the decision between them a smaller decision than the marketing suggests, and it means the reader's due diligence needs to include reading which entity their live account is actually booked to before the first funded trade — not after.
This piece did not cover three things and it did not cover them for a reason. It did not price the raw-account commission on either side, because the grounding we worked from does not include those figures and we do not fabricate what we do not have. It did not compare execution quality — fill speed, requote frequency, slippage on news events — because two weeks of schedule comparison does not touch those variables and any claim in that direction would be pretense. And it did not address the Sharia-compliance status of either broker's swap-free implementation, because that judgment belongs to the reader's own scholar, not to a trading desk.
FAQ
Does XM's DFSA registration mean a Saudi trader's account is supervised by Dubai?
Almost certainly not. DFSA licenses the specific XM entity operating inside DIFC and supervises that entity's capital, conduct, and complaints procedures. Saudi residents onboarding through xm.com are typically routed into offshore booking entities — CySEC in Cyprus or the group's FSC arm — where DFSA rules do not apply. Confirm which entity your live account belongs to before treating the DFSA badge as coverage; the badge is authentic but the coverage is often nil.
Which broker is cheaper for a Saudi retail trader on EUR/USD?
On the standard account, IC Markets averages 1.0 pip and XM averages 1.6 pips, a 0.6-pip differential per round trip that compounds fast for anyone taking twenty or more trades in a two-week window. On the raw account, both list 0.1 pips before commission, and the commission is where the broker earns — the schedules we have do not disclose it, so the raw-account decision cannot be closed on spread alone.
Can I open an XM account with less than $200?
Yes. XM's minimum deposit is $5, which makes it the only viable option in this pairing for a Saudi trader wanting to test a strategy with small capital. IC Markets requires a $200 minimum, which excludes the sub-$200 cohort entirely. If your funded capital is small, the comparison narrows to a one-broker answer.
Are either of these brokers licensed by SAMA?
Neither. SAMA does not license retail CFD or forex brokers for the Saudi market, and the Capital Market Authority supervises listed-market participants rather than offshore CFD desks. Any Saudi resident trading through XM, IC Markets, or any competing offshore broker is trading with a counterparty that has no Saudi regulator relationship. That is the baseline for the whole product category, not a flaw specific to either brand.
Do both brokers offer Islamic swap-free accounts?
Both list Islamic swap-free accounts on their standard product set. The mechanics of how each broker replaces overnight swap — through administration fees, adjusted spreads, or per-position charges — are not disclosed in the summary schedules and vary by asset. Read the specific swap-free addendum on your account type before assuming the marketing label matches your Sharia framework. The label is uniform across the industry; the implementation is not.
Is the higher leverage at XM (1:1000) actually available to a Saudi trader?
The 1:1000 figure comes from XM's most permissive offshore entity, not from its ASIC-regulated arm, which caps leverage at 1:30 on majors under Australian retail rules. Saudi residents onboarding through the group are typically routed into the offshore entity where the higher figure is accessible. Choosing XM for 1:1000 is choosing that booking entity, with the regulatory posture that comes with it — a trade-off worth understanding before you fund.
How fast do withdrawals actually clear at each broker?
IC Markets publishes a one-business-day processing window. XM publishes one to two business days. Both figures are broker-side timings and exclude the receiving bank's SWIFT leg, which for a Saudi-domiciled SAR account converting from USD typically adds one to three additional business days depending on the correspondent bank. The broker-side differential is real but small relative to the settlement chain a Saudi trader actually experiences on the money's return.