An algorithm is only as good as its execution venue. The broker decision affects spreads, slippage, EA permissions, and (if you are American) which brokers you are even allowed to use. Here is the practical checklist, split by the regulatory line that matters most.
The universal checklist
- True MT5 support. Not MT4-only, not a proprietary platform with an MT5 bridge. Native MT5 accounts with full EA permissions.
- ECN or raw-spread execution. Systems trading session opens need tight spreads. Raw accounts with commission (typically $6-7 per lot round trip) beat wide no-commission spreads for algorithmic trading almost every time.
- No EA restrictions. Some dealing-desk brokers restrict or discourage automated trading. Read the terms, or better, ask support directly whether EAs, and specifically stop orders around news, are unrestricted.
- VPS availability. Free or cheap VPS hosting near the broker's servers is a meaningful operational convenience.
Non-US traders: the full menu
Outside the United States, the ECN broker market is competitive and mature. Our own live account runs at IC Markets: raw spreads from 0.0 pips on majors, native MT5, no EA restrictions, and the infrastructure our verified track record runs on. Comparable options include Pepperstone and FP Markets. For our systems, the JPY pair spreads are the number to compare: they carry the breakout side of the portfolio.
US traders: a different country, literally
CFTC and NFA regulations restrict US retail forex to a handful of registered brokers, cap leverage at 1:50 on majors, mandate FIFO position accounting, and prohibit CFDs entirely. Offshore brokers accepting US clients despite this exist but put your capital outside any protection framework, which we do not recommend for serious accounts. Within the regulated menu, FOREX.com stands out for algorithmic traders: genuine MT5 support, EA permissions, and CFTC/NFA registration. The constraint set is tighter (leverage, FIFO), but our systems operate within it: position sizing at 0.5% to 1% risk per trade sits far below the 1:50 leverage ceiling.
One warning that applies everywhere
Backtest and live-trade on the same broker type. A system tested on raw ECN spreads will underperform its backtest on a wide-spread account, not because the system changed but because you changed the friction. Our published backtests assume ECN-grade execution, which is one more reason we state exactly which broker the live account runs on.
The account-type decision inside the broker decision
Choosing the broker is half the choice; the account type at that broker is the other half, and for algorithmic trading the arithmetic is unambiguous. Standard accounts advertise zero commission with spreads from around 1.0 pips; raw or ECN accounts charge roughly $7 per lot round-trip with spreads from 0.0 to 0.2 pips. Convert the commission to pips (about 0.7 on a standard lot) and the raw account's all-in cost of roughly 0.7 to 0.9 pips beats the standard account's 1.0 to 1.4 on every liquid pair, with the gap widening exactly when it matters most: at session opens and during volatility, when standard spreads balloon and raw spreads merely widen. For a system trading hundreds of times a year, the difference compounds to a meaningful fraction of annual return. Just as importantly, raw pricing is more honest to backtest against: commission is a fixed, modelable number while marked-up spreads are a moving target. Our published results assume raw-account economics, as does every serious systematic operation.
Migration discipline: changing brokers without changing your system
Broker changes happen (better conditions, regulation shifts, business closures), and done carelessly they corrupt the one thing that matters: the comparability of your track record. The disciplined migration: first, run the new broker on demo in parallel for two to four weeks, comparing fills, spreads at your trading hours, and swap rates against the incumbent. Second, verify symbol specifications match (contract sizes, margin currency, symbol suffixes) and get your EA licence re-issued for the new account number before funding. Third, overlap the accounts for a short period rather than hard-cutting mid-month, letting open positions at the old broker close naturally while new positions open at the new one. Fourth, annotate the transition date in your records and on MyFXBook, because execution-quality differences will show up in your gap tracking and you want them attributable. The whole process costs three weeks of patience and preserves years of clean data. The alternative, an impulsive Friday migration, is how traders end up unable to tell whether their system changed or their venue did.