Three different firms can all say they run "MetaTrader" or "a modern platform" and mean three completely different licensing arrangements. One holds a server licence directly from the platform vendor. One runs a white-label copy of a platform under someone else's brand terms. One bought a bundle where the platform, the CRM and the hosting all arrived from a single company on day one. Trading platform licensing models compared side by side explain why two brokers on paper look identical and operate nothing alike.
The three patterns show up across the industry regardless of which platform sits underneath: a direct server licence (MetaQuotes' MT4 and MT5 model), a white-label arrangement under an existing licence holder, and a bundled model where everything, platform included, arrives from one vendor.
Three licensing models compared
| Model | Examples | Who the firm answers to | Trade-offs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct server licence | MetaQuotes' MT4 / MT5 model | The platform vendor directly | Vendor decides who qualifies and on what terms; firms usually add a CRM, feed and risk tooling separately |
| White label under a licence holder | Common across MetaTrader; DXtrade sold explicitly as a platform a firm brands as its own | The full-licence holder the firm runs under | Fast route to market; the firm's continuity depends on that holder's own standing with the vendor |
| Bundled SaaS-style model | Match-Trader's B2B package; eTrader plus SGHK's Broker CRM or Prop Firm CRM | One vendor for platform, CRM and hosting together | Nothing for the firm to install, but the firm's roadmap now tracks the bundle vendor's own |
Direct server licence: the MetaQuotes model
MetaQuotes licenses MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5 server infrastructure directly to firms it approves. This is the model most people picture when they hear "platform licence": a firm applies, MetaQuotes decides whether and on what terms to grant it, and the firm ends up in a direct commercial relationship with the vendor rather than an intermediary. New firms are generally pointed toward MetaTrader 5 directly or toward a white-label arrangement rather than a standalone MetaTrader 4 server, which shows the vendor actively steering which firms get which arrangement.
A direct licence gets a firm the platform's real advantages on its own terms: the largest existing base of traders and the MQL5 Market's library of robots and indicators. It does not include a CRM, a price feed, a liquidity connection or risk tooling, all of which the firm sources and integrates itself around the licensed server.
White label under an existing licence holder
A white-label arrangement lets a firm run a platform under an existing full-licence holder's infrastructure and terms, rather than holding the licence itself. This pattern is common across MetaTrader specifically, and it is also how Devexperts explicitly sells DXtrade: as a platform a firm brands as its own rather than one it holds a direct vendor licence for. The appeal is speed to market without going through a vendor's own approval process directly.
The dependency runs one layer deeper than a direct licence. The firm's access rests on the licence holder's continued standing with the underlying vendor, and any change there, whether a pricing shift, a terms change or a business decision by the holder, reaches the firm secondhand rather than through a direct vendor relationship it can negotiate on its own.
Bundled SaaS-style models
The third pattern skips the licence question by bundling the platform with the CRM and the hosting from one vendor, so there is no separate platform licence to negotiate at all. Match-Trade sells this way: Match-Trader packaged with its own client office, payments and prop firm tools as one B2B commercial relationship.
SGHK's version bundles eTrader with the Broker CRM or Prop Firm CRM. Each firm gets its own eTrader servers, shown under its own name and logo, hosted in the cloud by SGHK and managed by the firm, built to scale across clustered servers as the firm grows, with nothing for the firm to host and prices updating every 70ms. There is no MetaQuotes-style approval gate, because the platform and the CRM come from the same vendor as one commercial relationship. The trade-off shifts rather than disappears: the firm now tracks that one vendor's own roadmap closely, and on eTrader specifically that includes a smaller third-party library than platforms built up over decades and robots written in Tide, eTrader's own language, rather than an established scripting language, so third-party robots are rewritten, not imported. Pricing for any bundle in this category, including SGHK's, is quoted for the firm on a call rather than published.
How to tell which model you are actually looking at
Ask three questions of any platform a firm is evaluating. Who holds the underlying server licence, the firm or someone it runs under. What happens to the firm's access if that party's relationship with the platform vendor changes. And does the CRM, the price feed and the hosting come from the same company as the platform, or from three separate contracts the firm has to keep in sync itself. The answers place a given setup into one of the three models above, regardless of what the platform is called in the marketing.
None of the three models is universally correct. A direct licence suits a firm that wants MetaTrader's trader base and a vendor relationship it controls, and can meet the vendor's own qualification bar. A white label suits a firm that wants speed and accepts a second layer of dependency. A bundle suits a firm that wants to skip integration work and is comfortable with one vendor's roadmap running most of its stack. See our guide on what to check on a platform vendor's licence terms before signing any of the three.
Whichever model you are weighing, get the actual terms in writing before assuming how the arrangement behaves under stress: what happens at renewal, what happens if the vendor changes its own terms, and what you can take with you if you leave. We are happy to walk through ours: book a call.
"Two brokers can both say MetaTrader and mean completely different businesses underneath. The licensing model is the part nobody puts on the pitch deck."
— The SGHK Team
Key Takeaways
- A direct server licence, like MetaQuotes' MT4 and MT5 model, puts the firm in a direct relationship with the platform vendor, subject to the vendor's own qualification.
- A white label, common across MetaTrader and how DXtrade is explicitly sold, runs under an existing licence holder, adding a second layer of dependency.
- A bundled SaaS-style model, like Match-Trader's B2B package or eTrader with SGHK's Broker or Prop Firm CRM, skips the separate licence question but ties the firm's roadmap to one vendor.
- Ask who holds the underlying licence and what happens if that party's own standing changes before assuming any two platform deals work the same way.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is eTrader a white label of another trading platform?
No. eTrader is its own platform, and SGHK's bundle is the third model, a bundled arrangement where the platform, CRM and hosting come from one vendor rather than a licence run under a separate holder.
Which licensing model is cheapest?
Cost is not published for most of these arrangements, including SGHK's, which quotes pricing per firm on a call. The bigger cost difference is usually integration time and ongoing engineering, not the licence fee itself.
Can a firm change licensing models after launch?
Yes, though moving from a white label to a direct licence, or from a bundle to a separately licensed stack, usually means migrating client accounts and trading history, which takes planning rather than being instant.
Does a bundled model like eTrader avoid all licensing risk?
It removes the MetaQuotes-style approval gate, but it does not remove vendor dependency entirely. The firm still relies on that one vendor's continuity and roadmap, and on eTrader specifically accepts a smaller third-party library and Tide instead of an established scripting language.
About SGHK
SGHK is a FinTech company that designs and builds its own software for the trading industry: the eTrader trading platform, Launch your Broker and Launch your Prop Firm. Every product is written, hosted and supported in-house and licensed to trading firms, with the CRMs branded to them, all hosted by us in the cloud, managed by each firm and built to scale across clustered servers as our clients grow. Everything is encrypted, and each firm is the only one with access to its data and its clients' data.