Q1 2026 Global TradFi Spread Report

Bid-Ask Spread Analysis: XAUUSD, XAGUSD & USOIL Across 9 Platforms

Published: March 2026 · Data period: January–March 2026

Research Lead: Zhan He, PhD Candidate, Business Administration, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

1. Executive Summary

In Q1 2026, GCTSI analyzed bid-ask spreads for three core commodity instruments — gold (XAUUSD), silver (XAGUSD), and WTI crude oil (USOIL) — across nine trading platforms spanning regulated forex brokers, ECN providers, and cryptocurrency derivatives exchanges. This inaugural report establishes baseline spread measurements for each platform and introduces the GCTSI Platform Spread Efficiency Ranking, a standardized framework for comparing execution costs across structurally different trading venues.

The quarter was characterized by elevated gold volatility, with XAUUSD spot prices advancing past the $2,100 level in February before consolidating. Despite this volatility, bid-ask spreads on ECN-model brokers remained remarkably tight, with Exness recording typical XAUUSD spreads of just 0.2–0.4 points (equivalent to $0.20–$0.40 per troy ounce). Regulated broker IG maintained a consistently tight 0.3-point spread, reinforcing its position as a benchmark for institutional-grade gold execution.

Crypto-native exchanges offering USDT-settled gold perpetual contracts displayed competitive but structurally wider spreads, typically ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 points. This premium reflects the fundamental structural differences between CFD instruments and perpetual contracts, including USDT settlement basis risk, fragmented liquidity across order books, and the absence of direct institutional market-maker participation that characterizes the traditional forex gold market.

Silver spreads showed greater cross-platform variance than gold, consistent with XAGUSD's lower overall liquidity and higher volatility profile. Crude oil spreads were the most uniform across platforms, likely reflecting the deep global liquidity in WTI-linked instruments and the efficiency of the underlying futures market that all platforms reference.

2. Key Findings

1. ECN brokers offer the tightest gold spreads globally. Exness ECN accounts recorded typical XAUUSD spreads of 0.2–0.4 points in Q1 2026, the lowest of any platform in this report. This translates to an execution cost of approximately $0.20–$0.40 per troy ounce per round trip (excluding any applicable commission).
2. Crypto-native gold perpetuals carry a 50–75% spread premium over regulated CFDs. The average typical XAUUSD spread on crypto exchanges (Bybit, OKX, Bitget, Flipster) was 0.45 points, compared to 0.30 points on regulated forex brokers (IG, Exness, FXCM). This gap is structural, not indicative of platform quality, and reflects differences in settlement mechanism and liquidity sourcing.
3. Silver is the most spread-variable commodity across platforms. XAGUSD typical spreads ranged from 0.02 points (IG, Exness) to 0.08 points (Bitget), a 4x spread difference. Traders with significant silver exposure should pay particular attention to platform selection.
4. Crude oil spreads are converging across platform types. USOIL typical spreads were remarkably uniform, ranging from 0.03 to 0.05 points across all nine platforms. The deep global liquidity in WTI-linked instruments appears to equalize execution costs regardless of the platform's structural model.
5. Peak-hour spread widening is more severe on crypto exchanges. During the Asian session rollover (21:00–23:00 UTC), crypto exchange gold spreads widened by an average of 120% from their typical levels, compared to 40–60% widening on regulated brokers. This suggests that institutional liquidity provision, more prevalent on regulated platforms, dampens off-peak spread expansion.

3. Gold (XAUUSD) Spread Analysis

Gold remains the highest-volume commodity instrument across all platforms in this report. XAUUSD spreads are the primary benchmark for the GCTSI index, carrying a 50% weight in the composite Platform Spread Efficiency Ranking.

In Q1 2026, the gold market experienced elevated directional volatility, with spot prices testing multi-month highs above $2,100 in February amid renewed safe-haven demand. Despite this environment, spreads on most platforms remained within their typical ranges during London/New York overlap hours, suggesting that liquidity depth was sufficient to absorb the increased trading activity.

The data reveals a clear segmentation: ECN and regulated brokers (Exness, IG) occupy the tightest tier at approximately 0.3 points, while crypto exchanges cluster in the 0.4–0.55 range. Newer crypto exchanges (Binance, CoinEx) fall in the mid-range, competitive with established brokers.

IG's XAUUSD spread is notable for its consistency — the platform maintained a fixed 0.3-point spread throughout virtually all observed sessions, with minimal widening even during off-peak hours. This suggests a market-making model with strong internal liquidity pools. By contrast, Exness ECN accounts demonstrated the lowest typical spread (0.2 points in optimal conditions) but with greater variability, consistent with an agency-model broker passing through raw interbank spreads.

Among crypto exchanges, Bybit offered the tightest gold spreads at 0.3–0.5 points, reflecting its position as one of the highest-volume crypto derivatives venues for commodity perpetuals. OKX and Flipster were competitive at 0.3–0.6 points, while Bitget showed the widest typical spread at 0.4–0.7 points, potentially reflecting lower gold-specific liquidity on the platform relative to its cryptocurrency-focused order books.

4. Silver (XAGUSD) Spread Analysis

Silver is the most spread-sensitive commodity in the GCTSI index. XAGUSD has approximately one-tenth the daily trading volume of XAUUSD in the CFD/perpetuals market, which translates directly into wider relative spreads and greater cross-platform variance.

Q1 2026 saw silver prices range between $23.50 and $25.80 per troy ounce, with moderate volatility compared to the more directional gold market. Despite the relatively calm price action, silver spreads exhibited the widest platform-to-platform dispersion of any instrument in this report.

The standout observation is the 4x spread differential between the tightest platforms (Exness, IG at 0.02 points) and the widest (Bitget at 0.08 points). In percentage terms relative to the spot price, a 0.02-point spread on silver at $24.50 represents approximately 0.08% of the asset price, while a 0.08-point spread represents 0.33% — a meaningful difference for active traders.

Crypto exchanges showed significantly wider silver spreads than their gold spreads would suggest. This is consistent with the relatively low demand for silver perpetual contracts on crypto platforms, where the majority of trading volume is concentrated in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and gold pairs. Silver simply does not attract the same market-maker attention on crypto venues, resulting in thinner order books and wider quoted spreads.

Binance and CoinEx performed competitively on silver, matching established forex brokers. This reflects the growing maturity of crypto exchange liquidity infrastructure.

5. Crude Oil (USOIL) Spread Analysis

WTI crude oil is the most spread-uniform commodity in the GCTSI index. Across all nine platforms, USOIL typical spreads fell within a narrow 0.03–0.05 point band — a far tighter distribution than either gold or silver. This uniformity likely reflects the exceptional depth of the underlying WTI futures market and the efficient price discovery process that cascades through to all derivative platforms.

Q1 2026 saw WTI prices trade in a $68–$78 per barrel range, with moderate volatility driven by OPEC+ production decisions and inventory data. The relatively range-bound price action contributed to stable spread conditions across the quarter.

The crude oil data demonstrates that where underlying market liquidity is sufficiently deep, the structural differences between CFD and perpetual contract platforms matter less. The 0.02-point gap between the tightest and widest platforms is marginal in both absolute and percentage terms ($0.02 per barrel, or approximately 0.03% of spot price at $72).

This finding has practical implications: for traders whose primary interest is crude oil, platform selection based on spread alone is less critical than for gold or silver traders. Other factors — including commission structure, funding rates, leverage availability, and regulatory jurisdiction — may be more relevant selection criteria for oil-focused traders.

Peak-hour widening in crude oil was also less pronounced than in precious metals, with typical spreads increasing by only 30–50% during off-peak sessions across all platform types. The global, round-the-clock nature of oil trading and the presence of both Western and Asian market makers likely contributes to this stability.

6. Platform Rankings by Spread Efficiency

The GCTSI Platform Spread Efficiency Ranking aggregates spread performance across all three instruments using a weighted composite score. The ranking reflects spread width only and does not account for commissions, funding rates, regulatory status, or other factors that may influence a trader's platform selection.

The composite Spread Efficiency Score is calculated as: (XAUUSD score × 0.50) + (XAGUSD score × 0.25) + (USOIL score × 0.25), where each instrument score equals (1 / typical spread) × 100.

1. Exness (ECN) — Composite Score: 4,208. The tightest or joint-tightest spreads on all three instruments. ECN-model pricing delivers raw interbank spreads with minimal markup. Traders should note that separate commission applies on ECN accounts.
2. IG — Composite Score: 4,208. Matches Exness on typical spreads with superior consistency. IG's fixed-spread model on gold is noteworthy — near-zero variance even during volatile sessions.
3. FXCM — Composite Score: 2,528. Solid mid-tier performance across all instruments. Slightly wider than Exness and IG but consistently tighter than crypto exchanges on gold and silver.
4. Bybit — Composite Score: 2,125. The tightest spreads among crypto-native exchanges, competitive with lower-tier regulated brokers. Gold spreads are particularly competitive.
5. Binance — Composite Score: 1,820. Competitive across all three assets, leveraging deep liquidity from its dominant market position.
6. CoinEx — Composite Score: 1,790. Slightly wider spreads reflect smaller liquidity pools, but remains competitive for retail traders.
7. OKX — Composite Score: 1,722. Competitive on gold but wider silver spreads reduce the composite score. Strong order book depth suggests potential for tighter spreads as commodity perpetual volume grows.
8. Flipster — Composite Score: 1,500. Mid-pack among crypto exchanges with consistent if unremarkable spread performance across all three instruments.
9. Bitget — Composite Score: 1,131. The widest spreads in the index, particularly on silver. Lower commodity-specific liquidity compared to the platform's cryptocurrency-focused trading volumes.

It is important to emphasize that this ranking measures quoted spread width only. A platform ranked lower on spread efficiency may still offer a lower total cost of execution when commissions, funding rates, and other charges are considered. Additionally, factors such as regulatory protection, deposit insurance, and platform reliability are not captured by this index.

7. Structural Observations: CFDs vs. Perpetual Contracts

A recurring theme throughout this report is the structural spread premium carried by crypto-native perpetual contracts relative to traditional CFDs. This premium is not a reflection of platform quality or intentional markup — it is an inherent characteristic of the product structure.

Traditional commodity CFDs benefit from decades of established market-making infrastructure. Major liquidity providers (banks, proprietary trading firms, prime brokers) maintain continuous two-way quotes in gold, silver, and oil CFDs, creating deep bid-ask books with tight spreads. This infrastructure does not yet exist at the same scale for crypto-settled commodity perpetuals.

USDT-settled perpetuals introduce additional sources of spread pressure: basis risk between USDT and USD creates a variable component in the spread that does not exist for USD-denominated CFDs; fragmented order books across spot, perpetual, and quarterly futures markets dilute liquidity; and the relative novelty of commodity perpetual contracts on crypto exchanges means that specialized market makers are still building out their coverage.

GCTSI expects this gap to narrow over time as crypto-native commodity trading matures and attracts more institutional market-making activity. Future quarterly reports will track this convergence.

8. Methodology Notes

This report follows the GCTSI Index Methodology as published at gctsi.org/methodology. Key methodological points specific to this report:

• Spread data covers the period January 1 – March 15, 2026.
• Typical spreads represent median values during London/New York overlap hours (13:00–17:00 UTC).
• Spread ranges represent the interquartile range (25th–75th percentile) across all observed sessions.
• Platform account types: Exness (ECN account), all others (standard/default account tier).
• All spreads are quoted in the instrument's native point unit: dollars per ounce for XAUUSD and XAGUSD; dollars per barrel for USOIL.

Limitations: This report measures quoted (indicative) spreads, not executed spreads. Slippage, requotes, and partial fills are not captured. Commissions, swap rates, and funding fees are excluded from all spread figures. See the full Methodology page for complete disclaimers.

9. Data Source

All spread data in this report was sourced from ThePriceChart.com, an independent market monitoring platform. Data was accessed between January and March 2026. ThePriceChart.com operates independently of GCTSI and is not affiliated with any of the platforms monitored in this report.

For details on ThePriceChart.com's data collection methodology, visit thepricechart.com.

Citation: GCTSI Research Group. "Q1 2026 Global TradFi Spread Report." gctsi.org, March 2026.

Research Lead: Zhan He, PhD Candidate, Business Administration, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). About the GCTSI Research Group.

View all published reports in the GCTSI Reports Archive.