This article is a contribution from our content partner, Bracket
As a busy treasurer, it’s easy to assume your FX execution is under control – the rates look fine, and no one’s raising flags. But without proper benchmarking, you could be paying far more than you think.
Treasury teams are generally meticulous about managing financial risk. But when it comes to FX – where millions can move in seconds – the same discipline often falls down the list.
It’s understandable. Teams are overstretched. Other priorities need tackling. And many treasurers assume that rates from banks, brokers, or multi-dealer platforms are ‘fair enough.’ Competition keeps things honest, right? So, no need to benchmark?
Not quite.
A recent LinkedIn poll by Treasury Masterminds, Bracket, and Treasury Storyteller revealed the reality:
- 25% of treasurers don’t benchmark FX transactions at all
- 31% make manual comparisons (better than nothing, but not scalable or always reliable)
- Only 28% use a formal benchmarking tool
A costly blind spot
These gaps in FX transparency aren’t just theoretical; they’re real and expensive. As one senior treasury practitioner comments, “In my prior experience as a consultant, I saw far too many companies execute FX transactions at spot with their primary operating banking partner, with no thought of exploring other options.”
“Even if treasurers and CFOs are only executing a few large spot trades each quarter, proper benchmarking can generate significant cost savings,” he adds.
Platforms that appear competitive aren’t necessarily immune, either. Alexander Ilkun, Treasury Masterminds Board Member, notes: “Even in highly competitive trading environments like FXall or 360T, banks learn through trial and error, adjusting their spreads based on competitive insights and client behaviour. Costs then follow a collective upward trajectory.”
It’s something Alex Charles, Co-Founder of Bracket, has seen throughout his 17 years in FX. “Most people don’t realise how much they’re leaving on the table by not benchmarking their FX transactions. It’s shocking. We’ve analysed over £30 billion of FX trades in just nine months and revealed average margin savings of 32%.”
“These aren’t outliers,” he adds. “They reflect deep, structural behaviours in the market that often go unchallenged. The opportunity for savings isn’t occasional – it’s systemic.
Treasurers often aren’t aware of the scale of the issue. Or don’t feel they have the time or the tools to benchmark in a meaningful way.”
Benchmarking is about more than cost
It’s not just about catching poor pricing, though; benchmarking can also help teams execute with visibility and confidence.
“Benchmarking can assist in identifying the best – and worst – times to trade, even on a daily basis,” says Patrick Kunz, Founder of Treasury Masterminds. “Certain FX pairs or bank combinations perform better at specific times, and only detailed benchmarking can reveal these trends.”
With the right data, treasurers can:
- Optimise their trade timing
- Push harder in negotiations and secure better financial outcomes
- Strengthen internal credibility – especially valuable in today’s climate of cost-cutting and stricter governance
Inaction isn’t a neutral move
Where transparency was once optional, it’s now a clear expectation. Initiatives like the FX Global Code and scrutiny from auditors and investors are pushing corporates to demonstrate best execution in practice, not just on paper.
“It’s tempting to view inertia as a neutral choice – a passive decision not to intervene unless something looks obviously wrong,” says Charles. “But the data suggests otherwise. Every un-benchmarked FX trade is a missed opportunity. And every month without transparency means hidden costs are still accumulating.”
The real question isn’t why benchmark. It’s how do you justify not doing it, given the evidence?
See how your FX trades stack up – for free
The good news? Benchmarking doesn’t have to be manual or expensive.
Bracket’s Benchmarker tool lets you upload any spot or forward trade – past or present – and instantly see if the pricing was fair. No integrations, no onboarding, and no cost for a trial run.