Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) vs. Best Execution


As the financial market evolves, new strategies and concepts are introduced to keep up with the changing landscape. Two critical concepts that traders, investors, and regulators often discuss are Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) and Best Execution. In this blog post, we will delve into the core of PFOF and Best Execution, highlighting their differences and examining the pros and cons of each approach.

Payment for Order Flow (PFOF)

Payment for Order Flow is a practice where a brokerage firm receives compensation for directing customer orders to specific market makers or other trading venues. Market makers facilitate trading by providing liquidity and ensuring a buyer and seller for every trade. In return for this service, market makers receive a portion of the bid-ask spread.

PFOF has gained popularity, particularly among commission-free trading platforms, as it allows them to generate revenue without charging customers upfront fees.

Pros of Payment for Order Flow (PFOF):

  1. Low or no commission fees: As brokerages receive compensation from market makers, they can afford to charge minimal or no fees to their customers.
  2. Increased liquidity: PFOF incentivises market makers to provide liquidity and tight bid-ask spreads, which can be beneficial for investors.

Cons of Payment for Order Flow:

  1. Conflicts of interest: Brokerages may prioritise higher-paying market makers over others, which may not result in the best possible execution for their customers.
  2. Price improvement limitations: PFOF may limit the opportunities for price improvement if the market maker does not offer the best possible prices.

Best Execution

Best Execution is a regulatory requirement that brokerages must meet to ensure the most favorable terms for their customers when executing trades. This includes factors such as price, speed, and likelihood of execution. Brokerages must periodically review and analyse their execution quality to maintain a high standard.

Pros of Best Execution:

  1. Protecting investors: Best Execution is designed to protect investors by ensuring they receive the best possible trade outcomes.
  2. Transparency: Brokerages must provide transparent reports on their execution practices, allowing customers to make informed decisions.

Cons of Best Execution:

  1. Subjectivity: Determining what constitutes the “best” execution can be subjective, as different factors may have varying levels of importance for different customers.
  2. Cost: Ensuring the best execution may come with added costs that could be passed onto the customer in the form of fees.

The Key Differences:

  1. Objectives:
    PFOF is a revenue-generating practice for brokerages, while Best Execution is a regulatory requirement to protect investors.
  2. Compensation:
    PFOF involves brokerages receiving compensation for directing orders, while Best Execution focuses on optimizing trade execution for customers.
  3. Conflicts of interest:
    PFOF can create conflicts of interest for brokerages, while Best Execution aims to mitigate such conflicts.


Payment for Order Flow and Best Execution are two distinct concepts in the world of finance. Understanding their differences is vital for investors looking to make informed decisions about their trading activities. While PFOF can provide access to low-cost trading platforms, it may come with potential conflicts of interest. On the other hand, Best Execution is designed to protect investors by ensuring the most favorable trade outcomes, although it may come with additional costs.

TradingJoe is a UK platform offering commission-free trading on stocks, options and ETFs using a Best Execution model.

Sign up to our waitlist to get early access and up to £2000 if you refer friends.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *