Interactive Brokers vs Trading 212
Detailed side-by-side broker comparison
Interactive Brokers (SEC/FCA, minimum deposit $0) and Trading 212 (FCA/CySEC, minimum deposit $1) are two regulated brokers competing for retail investors in the CIS and EU markets. This comparison is built from verified data on fees, available instruments, trading platforms and country access — so you can see exactly where each broker wins before you open an account.
Across 9 fee categories Interactive Brokers and Trading 212 split wins roughly evenly — the cheaper option depends on your specific trading pattern (stocks vs ETFs, frequency, currency). On asset class coverage Interactive Brokers is ahead with 6 instrument categories versus 3 at Trading 212 — relevant if you plan to diversify beyond stocks into bonds, ETFs, commodities or crypto.
Both brokers have similar entry requirements, so the decision comes down to fees and instruments. Interactive Brokers supports 3 trading platforms, Trading 212 supports 2.
Trust dimensions side by side
Where it's safer
Five trust dimensions per our methodology. The further from the centre — the stronger. Dashed line is the industry median.
Interactive Brokers leads on the combined score — 100/100 vs 83/100. Industry median is 72.
Overview
Interactive Brokers leads with 6 out of 9 objective metrics. On fees specifically, wins 1 of 9 categories.
Fees & Commissions
Fee scenario
Approximate — based on listed fees only. Real costs depend on instrument, currency conversion and individual trade size.
Instruments & Markets
10k+ instruments · 10k+ instrumentsRegulators & investor protection
- SEC—United States
- FCA—United Kingdom
- IIROC—Canada
- SFC—Hong Kong
- ASIC—Australia
- FCA—United Kingdom
- CySEC—Cyprus (EU)
Both brokers operate under Tier-1 jurisdictions, so regulatory oversight strength is comparable.
Account & Support
Interactive Brokers
Trading 212
Pros & Cons
Interactive Brokers
- Industry-cheapest per-share commission on US stocks (IBKR Pro Tiered $0.0035/sh, Fixed $0.005/sh)
- SIPC protection up to $500,000 per account ($250k cash) — strongest US-domiciled coverage
- 150+ markets from one account, including direct access to LSE / XETRA / HKEX / TSE
- Public NASDAQ-listed parent (IBKR) — financial transparency above industry norm
- Wide instrument selection (10k+)
- Trader Workstation (TWS) has a famously steep learning curve
- IBKR Lite (zero-commission plan) is US-residents-only
- Customer support thin relative to peers — chat queues commonly multi-hour
- Mobile app is functional but utilitarian — not a Robinhood-style experience
Trading 212
- 0% commission with fractional shares from £1 — genuinely accessible
- Pie investing — multi-stock portfolios with automatic rebalancing
- UK ISA available — tax-free growth for UK residents
- Strong Trustpilot rating (4.6★)
- Wide instrument selection (10k+)
- Not available in CIS countries — UK and EU residents only
- 0.15% FX conversion on each trade when currencies mismatch
- CFD product exists alongside Invest — potential for confusion
Who each broker is for
Verdict
Both Interactive Brokers and Trading 212 are regulated brokers offering access to global financial markets. However, they differ significantly in fees, available instruments, and minimum deposit requirements. Below is our expert assessment to help you make an informed decision.
Choose Interactive Brokers if you want more instruments, lower entry barrier, more account currencies.
Choose Trading 212 if you want a stronger Trustpilot rating.
- Just starting outEither works
- Active tradingInteractive Brokers· more instruments, faster withdrawals
- Advanced / professionalInteractive Brokers· more exchanges, more account currencies
Ultimately, the best choice depends on your trading style, budget, and preferred instruments. We recommend using our Broker Quiz for a personalized recommendation.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this comparison and how to use it.