Attention UK investors! Remember our massive broker comparison table? Well, we’ve rolled up our sleeves and updated it again to help you find the best online broker for you.
Cleaning up a mass spillage of Smarties with chopsticks would be less tedious. But it would not have produced a quick and easy overview of all the main execution-only investment services.
Investment platforms, stock brokers, call them what you will… we’ve stripped them back to basics for you to eyeball over a cup of cocoa and a handful of your favourite stimulants.
What’s changed with this update?
Disclosure: Links to platforms may be affiliate links, where we may earn a commission. This article is not personal financial advice. When investing, your capital is at risk and you may get back less than invested. With commission-free brokers other fees may apply. See terms and fees. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.
UK platform behemoth Hargreaves Lansdown has remixed its fee schedule for the first time in years. It seems even the mightiest are not immune to downward price pressure on investing charges!
Whether Hargreaves Lansdown is now any more competitive or not depends on how you use its services. The headline platform charge was cut along with trading costs for ETFs, shares, investment trusts, and gilts. But fee caps rose along with trading costs for funds.
The Hargreaves Lansdown price changes go into effect on 1 March.
Meanwhile, Freetrade has fully ditched SIPP charges for its Basic plan customers. This Basic plan looks pretty good so it could be worth a nosey.
IG scrapped its standing charge as well, and so joins Freetrade among the swelling ranks of UK brokers who don’t sting you for platform fees or trading commissions – just so long as you can avoid the lure of its more exotic temptations.
If zero fees make you queasy then Interactive Investor looks very competitive for flat-rate SIPPs now it has cleaned up what was one of the most bewildering fee schedules in the industry.
Meanwhile Scottish Widows (formerly iWeb) is keenly priced for GIAs and stocks and shares ISAs, so long as you trade as rarely as a camel drinks water.
Who’s the best broker?
It’s impossible to say. There are too many subtle differences in the offers. The UK’s brokers occupy more niches than the mammal family. And while I know which one is best for me, I can’t know which one is right for you.
What we have done is laser focus the comparison onto the most important factor in play: cost.
An execution-only broker is not on this Earth to hold anyone’s hand.
Yes, we want their websites to work. We’d prefer them to not screw us over, go bust, or send us to the seventh circle of call centre hell. These things we take for granted.
So customer service metrics are not included in this table. It’s purely a bare-knuckle contest of brute cost for services rendered.
On that basis we’ve updated our ‘Good for’ column as below.
Commission-free brokers
- InvestEngine, Freetrade, Lightyear, Prosper, Trading 212, and IG
These are commission-free brokers. It’s always worth looking at a commission-free broker’s ‘How we make money’ page because – rest assured – they will be earning a buck, one way or another.
Just search that topic on their websites.
If you find commission-free brokers unsettling, then stay under the FSCS £85,000 investor compensation limit or use a broker that charges fees directly. You’ll find some very competitive offers in our table.
Prefer paying directly?
ISAs and GIAs
- Scottish Widows
SIPPs
- Vanguard up to around £60K portfolio value
- Interactive Investor £60K – £100K
- Fidelity and AJ Bell £100K+ (ETFs only, not funds)
The best choice for you depends on how often you trade and the value of your accounts, plus your personal priorities around customer service, family accounts, flexible ISAs, multi-currency accounts, and so on.
Our ‘Good for’ choices are purely cost-based. We assume 12 buy and four sell trades per year. Buy trades use a broker’s regular investing scheme when available.
Using the full table
We divide the major UK brokers into four camps:
- Flat-fee brokers – these charge one price for platform services, regardless of the size of your assets. In other words, they might charge you £100 per year, whether your portfolio is worth £1,000 or £1 million. Generally, if you’ve got a large portfolio then you definitely want to look here. Bear in mind that fixed fee doesn’t mean you won’t also be tapped up for dealing monies and a laundry list of other charges.
- Percentage-fee brokers – this is where the wealthy need to be careful. These guys charge a percentage of your assets, say 0.3% per year. For a portfolio of £1,000 this would amount to a fee of £3 – but on £1 million you’d be paying £3,000. Small investors should generally use percentage-fee brokers. However even surprisingly moderate rollers are better off with fixed fees. Many percentage-fee brokers offer fee caps and tiered charges to limit the damage.
- Commission-free brokers – these upstarts apparently don’t charge you at all. Their marketing departments have it easy, simply pointing to £0 account charges and trading fees costing diddly squat. So why don’t these firms go bankrupt? Because they make up the difference using other methods. Revenue streams can include higher spreads, no interest on cash, and cross-selling more profitable services.
- Trading platforms – brokerages that suit active investors who want to deal mostly in shares and more exotic securities besides. Think of noob-unfriendly sites like Interactive Brokers, Degiro, and friends.
Our table looks complex. But choosing the right broker needn’t be any more painful than checking it offers the investments you want and running a few numbers on your portfolio.
Help us find the best online broker for all of you
Our table’s ongoing vitality relies on crowd-sourcing.
We review the whole thing roughly every three months. But it can be kept permanently up-to-date if you contact us or leave a comment every time you find an inaccuracy, fresh information, or a platform you think should be added.
Thanks to your efforts as much as ours, our broker comparison table has become an invaluable resource for UK investors looking to find the best online broker.
Take it steady,
The Accumulator
@Unwilling codemonkey (399)
But HL had and will still have capped fees for shares/ITs/ETFs, even though the ISA cap is now increasing while the SIPP cap is decreasing. So weren’t you motivated to hold ETFs (or ITs) with them before?
@DavidV I started a SIPP at HL in 2008 knowing nothing more than I should have a pension, and bought funds, which looked better value with no bid-offer spread. Since then I’ve kept chucking money in but haven’t paid it much attention; the only change was hearing about low cost index funds (waves at Monevator) and switching to those.
So I didn’t give it much thought until HL’s fee change in 2026 jogged me out of my complacency as I saw how much I was paying a year. Up to this point I must have been close to HL’s ideal customer 🙂
For some reason I also thought ETFs were more risky than funds, so I’m heading off to read https://monevator.com/etfs-vs-index-funds-differences/.
@Unwilling codemonkey – You’re spot on. I’ve switched entirely to ETFs for that reason.
@Unwilling codemonkey –
>”For some reason I also thought ETFs were more risky than funds”
They are as such. You are correct in that ETFs are a bit more risk in terms of they are usually not UK domiciled (mostly Ireland/Luxembourg) and so do not have the UK FSCS protection that funds (OEICS/unit trusts) would have (providing they are UK domiciled).
This 85K FSCS protection for funds only is applicable if the fund manager fails, say HSBC or Legal & General, if they went bust. *Some* ETFs may have a small amount of protection, I believe up to 20K euros, in some instances but this seems very limited. For instance Vanguard’s irish ETFs don’t have this and not that many seem to, so I simply assume they probably won’t have protection if the worst happens. It’s such a small amount, I’m not sure it’s offering much in any event.
Note though – you would be covered for 85K in investments by FSCS if your investment platform/broker collapsed and couldn’t meet its liabilities which would include ETFs – providing platform is UK FCA authorised/regulated. It’s more likely a broker could fail rather than a large fund manager – although we live in hope that both would be rare. But etfs can be cheap/easier to trade and know price in advance of buying. If you stick with the larger more established etf fund managers with large AUM/funds, failure should be very unlikely.
I personally spread my investments across both funds and etfs as well as across fund managers and platforms to diversify risk. You can hold funds for the same cost/platform charge as etfs at some platforms (e.g. Scot. Widows/Int. Investor/Vanguard) and can hold etfs more cheaply at AJBell/Fidelity (and even HSBC InvestDirect (for £42/yr) – although quite limited etf choice but does the job if you need to diversify platforms).
It is always a trade off between fees/risk of loss if sh*t did happen. Therefore I have quite a few fund managers and platforms for safety as I don’t want to be the one holding 500k on a platform that goes bust – but I still keep my fees relatively low and often transfer out if they get too high such as I did with the HL fee increase recently (etf fee cap). I don’t find managing a few platforms a problem at all – it’s more the CG tax return malarkey on GIA accounts – that’s a bigger pain in the backside for me – and comes around too fast!
I know this is likely a stupid question, as it is down to personal preference but then I am not very experienced with investing, but how much should you hold/is it safe to hold on one platform.
I know it’s very relative depending on what you have to invest (as you would probably risk more if you have more but not if you don’t) but presume those with larger amounts don’t keep strictly to the 85000 limit with all accounts, as maybe wouldn’t be enough of them to go around -but what do others themselves do – would it be around 15o/200 or even 250k as a general level so as to be relatively safe (whilst also not overpaying fees on many accounts) or is it that utterly unlikely to happen, with more established brokers, that it’s fairly safe to hold much more?
It’s just that with savings accounts that had mainly in the past, rather than investments, I’ve kept under the limit as there are many many banks to spread around and which in fact seemed quite prudent to do back in the day with the banking collapse. So now I tend to think why wouldn’t I need to do that with investment platforms, aside from the fact that it is maybe more difficult to do/more impractical?
Any thoughts/help very much appreciated.
@Jasmine — It’s not a silly question but it’s very difficult to give good guidance, partly because as you say it’s down to personal risk tolerance and partly because the area is so prone to confusion. (And finally, I should stress, because we can *never* give *personal* advice here on Monevator).
I think the best thing you can do is read our article on what investor protections/compensation is available…
https://monevator.com/investor-compensation-scheme/
…and then read the comments below for a wide range of perspectives as to how people approach this concept.
I can say for my own part I would never have all my eggs in one basket. Even splitting across just two reputable platforms takes a lot of the risk and hassle I face off the table. (I’d still likely have access to one account if the other fell over, and I won’t lose *all* my money in an extremely unlikely nightmare scenario). But there are readers here who even disagree that even this modest minimum of reputable platform diversification is rational, so as I say have a read and make your mind up for yourself. 🙂
Good luck with your investing!
@Jasmine – there have been a couple of examples of UK broker insolvencies – Beaufort Securities and SVS Securities. Neither of them exactly mainstream but not fly-by-night either.
In both cases, the system – as in the regulatory response – basically worked but it was very messy. Customers were left in limbo for a long time and, in the Beaufort case in particular, it looked like they were going to lose money – especially those with high-value accounts.
Beaufort went into administration in March 2018 and I’ve got a bookmarked FT story from Nov 2022 which reported the FSCS was still in the process of compensating customers four years later.
I need to check back in on the conclusion (if there is one) but certainly at that point it looked like some people would not be made whole for one reason or another.
That said, the pattern in the past has been: some assets in the failed business are recoverable, but there is a shortfall, plus costs to be taken into account.
So if the worst happened, and you’re over £85K, you’re essentially calculating that your share of recoverable assets plus the £85K would make you whole.
That’s reasonable but no-one knows where the line is.
So even though you’re right, these events are rare, broker diversification is a good move – especially because the process can be glacial and you may need access to some of your money in the interim.
The £85K line is safest but there are reasons to believe there is wiggle room. Higher value accounts are plainly at greater risk than accounts that stay closer to the line. As TI says, everyone has their own personal take on convenience versus risk but hopefully that background helps you weigh up your own approach.
@The Investor/The Accumulator – Thank you for your replies and information -not advice of course! (and the link to your “Investor compensation scheme” article).
Yes I agree with you, it would seem to make good sense to spread investments between platforms.
You mentioned some other readers don’t even want/have two platforms but I would never personally feel that safe keeping possibly future larger amounts with just one, whoever held with and however unlikely something bad would happen.
As I mentioned before, who thought the banking crisis would happen with the global banking system in meltdown. And I think the Government would look more favourably in bailing out failed banks with the economy at risk and savings of the general public rather than bailing out investors who are often thought of as “wealthy” and “having plenty already” (rightly or wrongly) and so less likely to bail out any that have over the 85k limit on a platform. The Govt. obviously think more of protecting savers anyway as they now have the increased 120k limit for them, not so for investors.
@TA mentioned Beaufort Securities. I tried to look for more information on the web for an update but most articles seem to go back to 2018, so not really up to date but AI came up with this, although I don’t know how correct the information is as it’s sometimes hit and miss with its findings:
AI Overview:
“Some investors did lose out following the collapse of Beaufort Securities in March 2018, although the majority of the 17,000+ clients were protected from significant losses by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
While an initial, controversial proposal by administrators PwC suggested that clients might have to cover up to £100 million in liquidation costs—potentially losing up to 40% of their holdings—intervention by the FSCS meant that most clients received their cash and assets back without significant losses. (International Adviser)
Here are the key details regarding losses and compensation:
Who Lost Money: Roughly 700 clients with assets valued over £150,000 were at risk of losses exceeding the £50,000 FSCS compensation limit.
Failed Protection: Some clients held investments in “nil value” or highly illiquid assets that became worthless during the collapse.
Liquidation Costs: While the FSCS covered administration costs up to £10,000 per person, some clients, particularly corporate investors, were still liable for higher fees and potential shortfalls.
Overall Impact: The FSCS and PwC successfully transferred the vast majority of client assets (approximately 16,000 out of 17,500) to other brokers, such as The Share Centre, by late 2018.
Mis-selling Claims: Further, investors who were advised to buy inappropriate investments (such as SIPP products) through Beaufort may have had separate, additional claims. (Financial Conduct Authority | FCA)
The collapse was triggered by an FBI investigation into securities fraud and money laundering involving a manager at the firm. (Goodwin Barrett)”
Interesting, if it is correct, to read that 700 clients with values over £150,000 were at risk of losses that exceeded the then 50k limit.
We all live in hope it won’t happen at all often!
That said I’ve read articles and others’ comments on the safety of different brokers and if say, 30 brokers there can be 30 different opinions on who is the safest – it’s likely impossible to say at any one time who is and then it could change anyway as it only tales one fraudulent/negligent individual (eg. Barings Bank).
Like some people say though, I was tending to think that some of the brokers that are allied to banking groups may be safer such as Scottish Widows (and Lloyds/Halifax in same group)/HSBC/Barclays etc. as they are so huge in terms of their size and reputation as a banking group overall.
But although part of the same group, some seem to be separate limited companies – such as Halifax Share dealing Ltd. (even though the parent company is Lloyds Banking Group) so isn’t it that legally they could fail without it affecting the banking group as that is often one reason why they are set up as separate entities in the first place isn’t it? I read about HSBC being fined a large amount for failures a bit ago – was it for not segregating customer assets properly as per the FCA rules or something I think?
Morally we would think it wouldn’t be right for a large banking group to let its broking/investment arm fail and investors’ lose but do many bankers have morals? We saw that during the banking crisis, negligence/corruption/poor performance but still huge bonuses being paid. And how likely would it be for the Govt. to force them to have morals and reimburse all clients if their platform went bust? Not sure.
I think my strategy will be to spread risk between platforms (and probably more so if I have less held in investments, if they are beyond the 85k limit).
If lucky enough to have a lot more, I feel it’s still a good idea to do it but probably not always practical in reality in having to have many more accounts and so I would likely let it drift over the limit a fair bit more in that scenario (as it wouldn’t maybe impact me then in the same way if the worst happened?)
As you say over a certain larger amount, rather than just risk/safety considerations, it becomes a question of practicality/convenience as well as trying to keep your fees within a reasonable amount so as not to drain your profits out of the back door.
Many thanks again to you both for your thoughts/help. Input from others’ makes you think and consider things in different ways – sometimes things you never thought about and which is why this site/forum is so good at what it does.
All the best.
@F&F — Sorry to delete but I don’t want this thread cluttered up with that sort of thing. Possibly best to try a Reddit board or similar if they allow it? Thanks for understanding!
@Jasmine – cheers for the follow up and thank you for your kind comments – it really does help us keep going.
That AI overview seems reasonable to me. AIUI some people did lose out but not many and there may have been “reasons”. The Beaufort scandal put the system under pressure and I think part of the issue was that many elements of the FSCS scheme including PwC’s proposal hadn’t been tested before. Maybe that’s reassuring in the sense that the FSCS aren’t called upon to cover this type of insolvency very often, and perhaps some wrinkles got ironed out – though it took substantial media coverage and investor advocacy IIRC.
Partly, I think everyone involved – e.g. gov and the relevant parts of the finance industry – realised it wasn’t in anyone’s interest for retail investors to get spooked. After all, the scheme is designed to build confidence not undermine it.
I agree that people have different views about sensible precautions. In that sense, it’s like rock climbing or some other risky endeavour. The risks are real. As such, some people never rock climb. Others take sensible steps and enjoy a lifetime of rock climbing. A few take unnecessary risks and come a cropper. A smaller number are just plain unlucky.
Unlike not rock climbing, failure to even try to climb your investing mountain is a risk in itself. I’ll shut-up now 🙂