Copying across firms and copy detection
The question behind this page: "If I copy my own trades to accounts at two different firms, will a payout review flag me as a copy-trader?" It is a reasonable worry. Here is what firms actually write down, what they enforce, and what is rumor.
What firms publish
Firms ban copying other people. Signal services, coordinated groups, trading someone else's account: banned essentially everywhere, usually with closure of every account involved.
Identical trades across your own accounts are, at most firms, the permitted case. That is what "own-account copying allowed" means. The firms' concern is direction and identity, not sameness: your accounts taking the same trade the same way is what a copier is for.
But some firms do look across accounts, households, and even firms. The kinds of clauses you may find in your firm's rules:
- Hedging bans that cross firms. Some firms ban opposing positions across your accounts, across different users, and explicitly across different firms and platforms. Same-direction across firms is not the banned case; opposite-direction is.
- Household-wide caps. Some firms count their account cap across your whole household and companies, and list sharing computers, IPs, or cards with other traders as a prohibited activity.
- Bans on trading in concert. Some firms ban trading together with other people or unconnected accounts: pooling risk, or running the same or opposite strategy together.
- Automation clauses. Some firms require an automated strategy to be solely yours, not shared with other traders and not used across multiple firms, and say they scan for matching orders across unrelated accounts. Clauses like that are written for bots; how far they reach into copier use is usually not spelled out.
- Infrastructure surveillance. Some firms describe surveillance that weighs device and infrastructure clustering, while stating that no single signal (a shared IP, say) is a violation by itself.
What is rumored
Community stories about cross-firm "mimicry sweeps" (one firm detecting your fills at another firm and denying a payout over same-direction copying of your own accounts) are not something we have found in firms' published rules. What firms publish is narrower: correlated activity reviews aimed at multiple people acting as one, and hedging checks aimed at opposite-direction risk offsetting. Treat the broader version as unconfirmed, and treat your firm's own words as the rule.
Staying clearly inside the lines
- Read each firm's terms: both firms' rules apply to you at once, and the strictest clause wins in practice.
- Keep every copied account under your own name (or your own business, where the firm allows it).
- Same direction everywhere. Opposite-direction across firms is explicitly banned at some firms and risky everywhere. See hedging between accounts.
- Do not share setups, devices, IPs, or strategies with other traders. Most "copy detection" stories that end badly involve two people, not two firms.
Quick answers
Can one firm see my trades at another firm?
Firms do not publish their detection methods. What they publish is what they act on: identity, direction, and coordination between people. Assume correlated activity across your accounts is visible and make sure it is the permitted kind: your own accounts, same direction.
Will identical entries at two firms fail a payout review?
The published rules we have seen do not target your own same-direction accounts. Reviews target copying between people and cross-account hedging. Unverified stories exist; written rules win, so read your own firm's.
Is it safer to trade slightly different sizes at each firm?
Sizing per account is normal. That is what multipliers are for. But size variation is not a compliance tool, and it does not change what any published rule tests for.