Assessment of Support Service Quality Across 258 Brokers in 2026

[Enivid]

Introduction​

Customer support quality is an often-overlooked factor when choosing a Forex broker, yet it can be critical when time-sensitive issues arise — login problems, failed withdrawals, margin questions during volatile markets. A broker's responsiveness and the competence of its support agents reveal a lot about how it treats its clients.

This survey is an update to our 2016 assessment of Forex broker customer support, originally published on the EarnForex forum. We tried to contact 258 brokers over a period of roughly two and a half months, reaching out through live chat, online contact forms, and email. Each broker was asked the same three questions designed to test both the speed and substance of their responses.

The goal is straightforward: to provide traders with a reliable, data-driven comparison of broker support quality, and to assign each broker a support rating that can be used alongside other factors when evaluating brokers.

Methodology​

Questions Asked​

Three questions were posed to each broker's support team, covering key areas of trader concern:

1. Can my account balance become negative during market gaps due to a failed stop-out? What sort of protection do you offer?
2. In case of bankruptcy of the company, is my capital protected and how?
3. Does your company profit from my loss-making trades?

These questions serve a dual purpose. They test the broker's willingness to answer potentially uncomfortable questions transparently, and the answers themselves provide useful data about negative balance protection, fund segregation, and the broker's execution model.

Contact Channels​

The following approach was used, in order of priority:

1. Live chat — the primary contact method. Sessions were initiated starting from 13:00 UTC, Monday to Friday, with additional attempts at different times to maximize the chance of reaching a live agent.
2. Online contact forms — used when no chat facility was available. In some cases, forms did not function or produced no response.
3. Email — used as a fallback when chat and forms failed. Emails were sent via Gmail (which generally produced better deliverability than Hotmail, likely due to broker spam filters). Repeated attempts were made when no reply was received.

Some brokers also responded via WhatsApp after an initial email exchange (ADSS, ATFX, PhillipCapital, Spread Co, FISG, and Trade 24/7).

​

Scope and Timing​

A total of 258 Forex brokers were contacted. The survey was conducted over approximately two and a half months. Note that the survey period included the Christmas and New Year holiday season, which caused delays in receiving responses from some brokers. A small number of brokers in this list were found to be defunct during the survey period.

Findings​

Chat Availability​

Of the 258 brokers surveyed, 178 offered a working chat facility (either a live agent, an AI assistant, or both). The remaining brokers either had broken chat functionality, were perpetually unavailable, or offered no chat option at all.

​

AI Assistants vs. Live Agents​

AI assistants and bots generally offered faster responses, often answering within seconds by retrieving information from their knowledge base. They required less explanation and could handle the three survey questions efficiently. However, it is important to note that AI-only support, while fast, does not necessarily reflect the full quality of a broker's support operation — complex or account-specific issues typically require a human agent.

Due to high inquiry volumes, some brokers made it nearly impossible to connect with a live agent, with bots acting as the sole point of contact.

Brokers with Non-Functional Chat​

13 brokers technically offered a chat feature on their website, but it did not produce a usable interaction. Common issues included: chat buttons that failed to launch, perpetual "we're away" messages, forms that accepted input but never produced a response, and agents who were always listed as busy.

Brokers with No Chat Facility​

67 brokers either did not have any chat option at all or had one, but responded via email.

Live Chat Response Times​

Response times were measured for each of the three survey questions separately. This provides insight into both the initial responsiveness of the broker and whether the agent maintained speed throughout the conversation or needed to consult other departments for certain questions.

First Query Response Time​

Bots and AI assistants achieved the fastest response times, often under 5 seconds. Among live agents, response times varied widely — from under a minute to as long as 50 minutes (CMC Markets, whose agent was nonetheless thorough and responsible). FXPIG's agent took 24 minutes and appeared inadequately trained. TrioMarkets' agent, while slow at 17 minutes 35 seconds, was sincere and consulted the relevant department.

As you can see from the chat response time histogram below, the most common chat response time is between 1 and 2 minutes for brokers, with quite a few of them answering even faster. Waiting for longer than 5 minutes is quite rare actually.

​

Second and Third Query Response Times​

Response patterns for the second and third questions generally mirrored the first, with a few notable observations. Some brokers that were fast on the first question slowed considerably on subsequent ones (particularly when the question touched on business model or fund safety). TrioMarkets' agent took 39 minutes 25 seconds for the second question. VT Markets' agent was consistently slow (16 min 45 sec and 23 min 20 sec for the second and third queries) but provided honest, responsible answers. XTB's agent honestly admitted reluctance to answer the third question (business model), taking 12 minutes 50 seconds.

Email and Online Form Response Times​

For brokers contacted via email or online forms, response times ranged from same-day to over six weeks. Using Gmail as the sending address generally produced better deliverability; emails sent from Hotmail often went unanswered, likely due to broker spam filtering.

As evidenced by the histogram below, it takes 5 or more days to respond via email. If we discard those slow brokers, you are very likely to get your response in less than a day.

Negative Balance Protection​

The vast majority of brokers (186) surveyed reported they offer some form of negative balance protection, either through automatic stop-out mechanisms, manual balance resets upon request, or regulatory requirements.

Brokers Without Negative Balance Protection​

Of the remaining brokers, 19 indicated they do not offer negative balance protection or stated that clients may be liable for negative balances. For 53 brokers, it is unclear — either because they failed to answer the question or their answer was too confusing.

Fund Safety and Segregation​

When asked about fund protection in case of company bankruptcy, most brokers (184) cited the segregation of client funds in separate bank accounts, regulatory compensation schemes, or insurance coverage. Three brokers admitted that there is no special safety measure for such an eventuality. The others could not confirm any form of fund protection.

Broker Execution Model​

Brokers were asked whether they profit from their clients' losing trades. This question distinguishes 160 ECN/STP brokers (who earn through commissions and spreads and pass orders to liquidity providers) from 18 market makers (who take the other side of client trades and may therefore profit from client losses). 19 brokers operate a hybrid model combining both approaches. The rest either didn't answer or provided an evasive answer. Notably, the number of self-reported ECN brokers is roughly twice larger than the number of ECN brokers classified as such by our system. This highlights the brokers' tendency to use ECN marker as a marketing gimmick.

Customer Support Quality Classification​

Based on the totality of each broker's performance — chat availability, response speed, answer quality, agent knowledge, willingness to answer all three questions, and email responsiveness — each broker was assigned one of four support quality ratings:

Excellent (Rating: 5/5) — 53 Brokers​

These brokers demonstrated outstanding support quality. Live chat or AI connected quickly, agents provided clear and precise answers to all three questions without hesitation, and email responses (where applicable) were prompt. Agents were knowledgeable and did not need to consult other departments.

ACY Securities, Admirals, ADSS, ATFX, Blaze Markets, CapitalBear, CedarFX, CM Trading, CMC Markets, Colmex Pro, Cornèr Trader, CPT Markets, Crystal Ball Markets, Darwinex, DefcoFX, Doto, Dukascopy, Equiti, eToro, Exness, FISG, Forex.ee, FP Markets, FX Giants, FXGlobe (EU), FXGT, IG, IronFX, Juno Markets, JustMarkets, Libertex / Forex Club, NAGA, Octa, Otet Markets, Pepperstone, PFD, PhillipCapital, Plexytrade, Profiforex, Purple Trading, Rock-West, Royal, Saxo Bank, Scandinavian Capital Markets, SimpleFX, Swissquote, tastyfx, Tradeview Markets, Trading 212, Trading.com, XBTFX, Xtreme Markets, Yadix.

Good (Rating: 4/5) — 130 Brokers​

These brokers provided solid support with clear and accurate answers. Minor issues such as longer wait times for one or more questions, occasional need to consult another department, or slightly delayed email responses prevented them from reaching the top tier.

AAAFx, AAFX Trading, ActivTrades, AdroFx, Ally Invest, AMarkets, Anzo Capital, ATC Brokers, AvaTrade, Axiory, Big Boss, BlackBull Markets, Blueberry, CapitalCore, City Index, CMS Prime, Coinexx, Credit Financier Invest (CFI), DeltaStock, Deriv, DuraMarkets, easyMarkets, EBC, Eightcap, Esperio, ETO Markets, FIBOGroup, FinPros, FirewoodFX, Forex.com, ForexMart, Fortrade, FPG, Fusion Markets, FX Trading, FXCL, FXCM, FXGlobe, FXGlory, FXNX, FXOpen, FXPRIMUS, FxPro, FXTM, Fxview, Fyntura, GCI, Gerchik & Co, Global Prime, GOMarkets, Grand Capital, GTC FX, Hankotrade, Hantec Markets, Headway, HF Markets, ICM Brokers, IFC Markets, INFINOX, Ingot Brokers, InstaForex, Investizo, Jetvix, JFD Brokers, Just2Trade, Land Prime, Lirunex, LiteFinance, LMAX Global, LMFX, M4Markets, MagnoFx, Markets.com, MarketsVox, Milton Prime, Mitrade, ModMount, Moneta Markets, MTrading, MultiBank, NordFX, NPBFX, NSFX, Number One Capital Markets, Olymp Trade, OpoFinance, OQtima, OxSecurities, PaxForex, Plus500, PrimeXBT, PU Prime, Questrade FX, RoboForex, ScoreCM, Sicher Mayor, Skilling, Solid ECN, Spread Co, SquaredFinancial, Strifor, ThinkMarkets, Tickmill, TIOmarkets, Titan FX, TMGM, Trade 24/7, Trade Nation, Trader's Way, Traders Trust, TrioMarkets, Trive, Ultima Markets, UnitedPips, UTrada, Valutrades, Vantage, VARIANSE, Velocity Trade, Vida Markets, VT Markets, Weltrade, WrPro, xChief, XM, XS, XTB, YCM-Invest, Yokin Broker, Z Forex.

Average (Rating: 3/5) — 33 Brokers​

These brokers had noticeable shortcomings. Common issues included difficulty connecting to live chat, agents who were inadequately trained or impatient, refusal to answer one or more questions, needing extensive explanation before understanding the queries, and significantly delayed email responses. However, they eventually provided usable answers.

Alpari, Axi, AZAforex, Capital Index, Capital Street FX, Capital.com, Doo Financial, Eurotrader, FBS, FreshForex, FXPIG, GBE brokers, Global Market Index, Golden Brokers, Gulf Brokers, HYCM, IC Markets, iFOREX (Vestle), IQ Option, Key To Markets, Markets4you, OANDA, One Financial Markets, OnEquity, Orbex, Pocket Broker, SmartFX, Synergy Markets, TOP1Markets, TSG Brokers, Windsor Brokers, World Forex, Zarvista CM.

Bad (Rating: 2/5) — 33 Brokers​

These brokers either failed to respond entirely through any channel (chat, form, and email), had completely non-functional support infrastructure, or refused to engage with the survey questions after initial contact.

AccentForex, AETOS, Axiance, Baxia Markets, BCR, BDSwiss, BelleoFX, Blackwell Global, BMFN, CA Markets, CIBFX, Dizicx, Evest, ForexTB, FXDD, FxGrow, FXNovus, GANNMarkets, Interactive Brokers, INVESTAiN, Lotas Capital, Milton Markets, nomo, NRDX, One Global Market, RockGlobal, Swiss Markets, TegasFX, VPFX, WesternFX, Wonderinterest, XB Prime, XGLOBAL Markets.

Not Rated (Rating: 1/5) — 9 Brokers​

These brokers could not be assessed due to special circumstances: defunct operations, redirects to other brokers, or duplicate entities.

CryptoGT, Deriv Europe, easyMarkets (EU), Forex24, Fullerton Markets, LHFX, OffersFX, TMS Brokers, Trade8.

Conclusion​

Across 258 Forex brokers surveyed, the quality of customer support varies enormously. While many brokers — roughly 70% — delivered good or excellent support, a meaningful portion either struggled with basic responsiveness or failed to engage entirely.

Key takeaways from this survey:

• AI assistants are reshaping broker support. They provide near-instant answers and handle standard queries efficiently. However, they should complement rather than replace human agents for complex issues.
• Responsiveness on the first question is not always sustained. Several brokers that responded quickly initially slowed down significantly on follow-up questions, particularly the business model question.
• Email remains unreliable as a primary support channel. Many brokers took weeks to respond, and some never replied at all. Spam filtering of certain email providers (particularly Hotmail) compounded the problem.
• Willingness to answer the business model question is a telling indicator. Brokers that openly disclose whether they are ECN/STP or Market Maker tend to have higher overall support quality scores.
• A non-functional chat button is worse than no chat at all. Brokers that advertise chat support but leave it perpetually broken or unstaffed create a negative impression that undermines trust.

The support ratings generated by this survey are designed to be used as one factor among many when evaluating a Forex broker. They reflect a specific moment in time and a specific type of inquiry. Traders should consider these ratings alongside regulation, trading conditions, and their own experience.

You can share your own experience dealing with your broker's support in this thread.