B
Charles Schwab logo

Charles Schwab

7.5/10
World Forex Review logo

World Forex Review

6.9/10
7/10WinnerRegulation4/10
10/10WinnerFees4/10
9/10PlatformsTied9/10
4/10Education & ResearchWinner10/10
4/10Deposits & WithdrawalsTied4/10
10/10SupportTied10/10

BrokerDataNet earns affiliate commission from brokers listed on this site. This does not affect our ratings or editorial independence.

Overview

Charles Schwab was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in United States, while World Forex Review was established in 2008 and is based in Vanuatu. Charles Schwab holds licences including Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while World Forex Review is regulated by Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC) among others. Charles Schwab serves 10,000+ clients worldwide; World Forex Review has 10,000+. The minimum deposit is $25 at Charles Schwab and $100 at World Forex Review.

Charles Schwab wins this category
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
Min. Deposit$25$100
RegulationCommodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC)
Founded20102008
CountryUnited StatesVanuatu
Clients10,000+10,000+

Fees

Fees are a critical factor when choosing between Charles Schwab and World Forex Review, directly affecting your bottom line as a trader. World Forex Review has a lower barrier to entry with a minimum deposit of $100 (vs $25 at Charles Schwab). Both brokers charge withdrawal fees. Charles Schwab applies inactivity fees on dormant accounts; World Forex Review does not. World Forex Review charges deposit fees; Charles Schwab does not. Overall, Charles Schwab scores higher on fees in our assessment.

Charles Schwab wins this category
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
Min. Deposit$25$100
Withdrawal FeesYesYes
Inactivity FeesYesNo
Deposit FeesNoYes
CFD FeesNoYes

Platforms

Charles Schwab offers MT4, MT5, cTrader, while World Forex Review supports MT4, MT5, cTrader. Both brokers provide mobile trading apps for iOS and Android. Charles Schwab supports social and copy trading features, which World Forex Review does not offer. The two brokers are closely matched on platform offering.

Tied
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
MT4YesYes
MT5YesYes
cTraderYesYes
Windows AppYesYes
iOS AppYesYes
Android AppYesYes
Trading PlatformsAndroid,WEB,Desktop,iPhone,MacAndroid Apps,iPhone/iPad,Desktop

Education & Research

Education and research tools help traders at every level make more informed decisions, and here's how Charles Schwab and World Forex Review compare. World Forex Review runs regular live webinars; Charles Schwab does not. Both provide video tutorials. World Forex Review publishes daily market commentary; Charles Schwab does not. Both integrate third-party research tools. World Forex Review maintains an archive of past webinars for on-demand viewing. World Forex Review scores higher overall in education and research.

World Forex Review wins this category
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
Forex EducationYesYes
CFD EducationNoYes
Weekly WebinarsNoYes
Daily CommentaryNoYes
Trading CentralNoYes
AutochartistYesYes

Deposits & Withdrawals

Convenient deposit and withdrawal options reduce friction for traders, especially important when managing positions across time zones. Charles Schwab accepts 2 of the tracked payment methods (bank transfer, credit/debit card), while World Forex Review supports 2 (bank transfer, credit/debit card). Both brokers support the same set of payment methods.

Tied
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
Bank TransferYesYes
Credit CardYesYes
PayPalNoNo
SkrillNoNo
NetellerNoNo

Support

Responsive customer support matters most when you're locked out of your account or need urgent help with a trade. Both Charles Schwab and World Forex Review offer live chat support. Both provide phone support. Email support is available at both brokers. Both brokers offer support in 2 languages. Both brokers are comparable on support quality.

Tied
FeatureCharles SchwabWorld Forex Review
Live ChatYesYes
Phone SupportYesYes
Email SupportYesYes
LanguagesEnglish, and ChineseEnglish, and Chinese