ECN vs STP vs Market Maker Brokers: Which Model Is Best in 2025?

Every forex broker operates under one of three main execution models—ECN, STP, or Market Maker. Each has its own structure, cost system, and way of handling client trades. For traders, understanding how these models work isn’t just technical knowledge; it’s the foundation for making informed decisions about where to trade.

In 2025, the differences between these models are clearer than ever as regulation, technology, and transparency standards continue to evolve. Brokers can no longer hide behind vague terms or blended structures—traders now expect proof of how their orders are executed.

The distinctions between ECN, STP, and Market Maker setups determine everything from execution speed to trading costs and potential conflicts of interest. For modern brokers like Skyriss, recognized as one of the best CFD brokers, and operating under an A-Book structure that combines ECN and STP elements, the focus remains on neutrality, transparency, and true alignment with client interests.

This isn’t just a comparison of models—it’s an inside look at which structure truly supports fair, efficient, and transparent trading in the modern era.

Understanding the Three Models

Before comparing which model performs best, it’s essential to understand what each one actually means. Although the terms ECN, STP, and Market Maker are often used interchangeably, they represent fundamentally different approaches to order execution and risk handling.

ECN Brokers: Direct Market Access

An ECN broker, short for Electronic Communication Network, connects traders directly to the interbank market. Orders from multiple participants ,  banks, hedge funds, and retail traders ,  are matched in real time.

There are no dealing desks, no manual intervention, and no re-quotes. Instead, prices are aggregated from multiple liquidity providers, giving traders access to tight spreads and deep market liquidity.

ECN brokers earn through commissions per trade rather than spread mark-ups. The key advantage is transparency: every order is matched with another participant, meaning the broker has no vested interest in whether a client wins or loses.

For high-volume or institutional traders, ECN environments are ideal because they offer raw pricing and minimal latency. However, for beginners, ECN accounts can feel complex ,  they often require higher minimum deposits and are more sensitive to market volatility.

As a regulated A-Book broker, Skyriss incorporates ECN-grade connectivity in its infrastructure, ensuring that traders access true market liquidity while maintaining user-friendly execution.

STP Brokers: Straight-Through Processing

The STP model (Straight-Through Processing) operates similarly to ECN in that it passes trades directly to liquidity providers rather than keeping them in-house. The main difference lies in how orders are processed and how spreads are structured.

An STP broker automatically routes client orders through its system without manual dealing. The broker can connect to several liquidity providers and may add a small markup to the raw spread as its revenue. This model still eliminates conflict of interest, as the broker doesn’t act as the counterparty to trades.

STP brokers are known for their simplicity and flexibility. They offer the transparency of A-Book execution but with smoother cost structures suitable for a broader range of traders.

Skyriss blends the best of both ECN and STP technologies, creating a hybrid environment where orders are executed directly within institutional liquidity pools with minimal markup ,  combining deep liquidity with stable, fair pricing.

Market Maker Brokers: Internal Execution

Market Maker brokers, also known as Dealing Desk brokers, take the opposite approach. They create their own internal market where clients trade directly against the broker.

This means when a trader opens a buy position, the broker may take the sell side. If the client profits, the broker loses ,  and vice versa. While this model allows brokers to provide fixed spreads and instant execution, it introduces a fundamental conflict of interest.

Market Makers typically do not send every trade to the external market. Instead, they may hedge only a portion of exposure with liquidity providers while retaining some risk internally. This structure can lead to faster fills during calm conditions but potential price manipulation or re-quotes during volatility.

Reputable Market Makers operate within regulatory frameworks that minimize these risks, but for traders seeking full transparency, ECN and STP models are often preferred.

Skyriss, as a fully A-Book broker, does not engage in market making. It routes all orders externally, ensuring neutrality and alignment with trader outcomes.

Transparency and Conflict of Interest

The most critical difference between these models lies in conflict of interest.

ECN and STP brokers, both under the A-Book category, do not profit from client losses. Their revenue comes from commissions or spread markups on volume. In contrast, a Market Maker’s profitability can directly depend on client trading performance ,  a structure that can misalign incentives if not strictly monitored.

In 2025, global regulation emphasizes transparency in execution methods. Brokers must disclose whether they act as principal (Market Maker) or agent (A-Book). This disclosure gives traders a clearer picture of how their orders are handled.

Skyriss’s neutral routing model aligns with this global shift. By remaining fully A-Book, it ensures that clients’ trades flow directly to liquidity providers, allowing traders to compete in the same market environment as institutions.

Execution Speed and Slippage

Execution speed defines trading efficiency. ECN and STP brokers leverage high-performance infrastructure with co-located servers near major liquidity hubs like London, New York, and Singapore. This setup reduces latency and ensures orders reach the market in milliseconds.

Market Makers, since they handle trades internally, may execute instantly during normal conditions but can delay or re-quote orders during volatility. When liquidity is tight, A-Book brokers tend to perform better because they aggregate prices from multiple sources instead of relying on one internal feed.

Skyriss invests in low-latency ECN technology, ensuring that traders experience consistent execution regardless of market volatility. Every transaction is verified through time-stamped records ,  a hallmark of true transparency.

Spread Structure and Trading Costs

One of the biggest practical differences between models is cost.

ECN brokers usually offer the tightest spreads because prices come directly from the interbank market, but they charge commissions per trade. STP brokers might offer slightly wider spreads with no additional commission. Market Makers often provide fixed spreads, which can widen significantly during major news or volatility.

For traders who value predictable costs, an STP setup can be appealing. For scalpers and professionals, ECN models provide the lowest effective spreads. Market Makers, while convenient for smaller accounts, may have hidden costs through price manipulation or order filtering.

Skyriss employs an aggregated liquidity feed that delivers raw pricing with minimal markup. This ensures institutional-level execution quality with transparent costs ,  ideal for both experienced and developing traders.

Liquidity Depth and Market Access

Liquidity determines how easily trades can be executed without affecting price. ECN and STP brokers typically connect to multiple liquidity providers, creating deep order books that support large trades without slippage.

Market Makers rely on their internal book, which limits liquidity to the broker’s own exposure capacity. This can result in slower fills or price adjustments when many clients trade in the same direction.

Skyriss partners with top-tier global liquidity providers to maintain continuous depth across major currency pairs, indices, and commodities. This connection allows traders to access the true interbank market rather than a simulated version of it.

Transparency and Reporting Standards in 2025

Regulators in 2025 demand detailed reporting from all brokers. Execution quality, order routing, and slippage data must be disclosed regularly.

For ECN and STP brokers, this requirement is straightforward ,  trades are verifiable through third-party liquidity statements. For Market Makers, the process is more complex since execution occurs internally.

As transparency becomes a regulatory priority, A-Book models gain further credibility. Brokers like Skyriss can easily demonstrate proof of execution and liquidity routing through verifiable audit trails.

This visibility not only satisfies regulators but builds lasting trust among traders who want assurance that every trade reaches the real market.

The Role of Regulation in Defining Broker Models

In previous years, many brokers blurred the lines between ECN, STP, and Market Maker models, creating hybrid systems that were difficult for traders to understand. New regulatory frameworks now require brokers to clearly define and disclose their model to clients.

Regulators also monitor whether brokers internalize orders, use price filters, or operate dealing desks. Any inconsistency between declared and actual execution methods can lead to license suspension.

Skyriss aligns its internal reporting and marketing statements with its operational reality ,  a fully A-Book system. This alignment ensures consistency across disclosure, execution, and compliance, reinforcing its credibility in an increasingly regulated marketplace.

Technology: The Equalizer

Technology is the foundation of modern brokerage. Whether ECN, STP, or Market Maker, execution efficiency depends on data transmission, server stability, and liquidity aggregation.

Advanced brokers now integrate artificial intelligence and machine learning to optimize order routing and reduce slippage. Real-time analytics ensure that trade execution is consistent with market conditions.

Skyriss employs a next-generation execution engine that monitors liquidity provider performance and automatically reroutes flow when needed. This ensures uninterrupted execution and precise fills ,  critical for traders relying on consistency across volatile sessions.

Trader Experience and Accessibility

From a trader’s perspective, ECN and STP models provide more realistic market conditions. Orders are executed at live market prices, and spreads fluctuate naturally with liquidity. For those who prefer predictable pricing, Market Makers may seem appealing, but the trade-off often lies in limited transparency.

Modern brokers strive to balance these factors. Skyriss provides institutional pricing with accessible account structures suitable for all levels. Its technology ensures that transparency doesn’t come at the expense of usability ,  a balance crucial for traders navigating complex markets.

Hybrid Models: The Middle Ground

Some brokers in 2025 describe themselves as hybrid ,  combining elements of both A-Book and B-Book systems. In practice, this means they send certain trades to liquidity providers while internalizing others.

While hybrid models can be managed ethically, the lack of transparency around which orders are routed externally remains a concern. Many brokers use hybrids to maximize profit rather than to enhance execution quality.

Skyriss rejects internalization altogether. Its A-Book structure ensures every trade is transmitted to the market through real liquidity partners. This clear, conflict-free process remains one of its core differentiators in an industry often blurred by hybrid claims.

How Market Volatility Tests Each Model

Periods of extreme volatility reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each model.

ECN and STP brokers tend to maintain pricing integrity even when spreads widen because they rely on real market liquidity. Market Makers, however, may freeze pricing or suspend execution to limit their own exposure.

Events such as central bank announcements or geopolitical shocks can cause liquidity fragmentation. A-Book brokers handle this by dynamically rerouting flow across multiple providers. Market Makers, limited to internal books, can only widen spreads or re-quote orders.

Skyriss’s execution systems are built to handle such volatility without sacrificing speed or fairness. The broker’s infrastructure monitors liquidity in real time, ensuring stability when traders need it most.

Choosing the Best Model for 2025

In 2025, traders are more informed and regulators are more vigilant. The question is no longer which model sounds best ,  but which one proves its integrity through evidence.

• ECN models remain the gold standard for institutional accuracy, transparency, and market depth.
  
  

• STP models balance efficiency and accessibility for broader retail participation.
  
  

• Market Maker models can provide stability but carry inherent conflicts that must be tightly regulated.
  
  

The best brokers, like Skyriss, blend ECN and STP elements within a pure A-Book framework ,  delivering institutional execution with a retail-friendly interface. This hybrid of transparency and accessibility defines what a legitimate, modern brokerage should look like in 2025.

What Traders Should Focus On

Rather than choosing based solely on spreads or marketing slogans, traders should evaluate brokers based on how orders are executed, how liquidity is sourced, and how transparent reporting is.

Key questions include:

• Does the broker profit from client losses or only from spreads and commissions?
  
  

• Are orders sent directly to the market or processed internally?
  
  

• How are funds protected and audited?
  
  

• Are pricing and execution reports publicly available?
  
  

For Skyriss, the answers are straightforward: complete neutrality, external execution, segregated funds, and verifiable transparency ,  a model that places traders and technology at the core of its integrity.

The Future of Brokerage Models

Looking ahead, the boundaries between ECN and STP will continue to blur as technology advances. Blockchain settlement, AI-driven routing, and tokenized liquidity networks will further enhance transparency and execution speed.

Market Maker models will persist but under tighter regulation, forcing full disclosure and stricter capital requirements. ECN and STP brokers will likely converge into a unified A-Book ecosystem where technology ensures fairness by default.

Skyriss is already adapting to that future. Its focus on institutional-grade connectivity, transparent liquidity aggregation, and compliant infrastructure ensures readiness for the next phase of brokerage evolution ,  where proof of integrity replaces promises.

The Model That Defines the Future

In 2025, traders don’t just seek tight spreads or fast platforms ,  they seek brokers they can verify. The winning model is not the one with the most aggressive marketing, but the one that aligns client and broker interests transparently.

ECN and STP systems, operating under A-Book principles, clearly represent that alignment. Market Maker structures, while still viable, belong to a previous era where opacity outweighed openness.

Skyriss exemplifies where the industry is heading ,  toward a transparent, technology-driven ecosystem where execution is fair, conflict is removed, and trust is quantifiable.

The debate between ECN, STP, and Market Maker brokers isn’t about terminology anymore. It’s about evolution. And in 2025, evolution favors transparency.