Euronext FX’s 2025 revenue grew faster than volume, but the ratio does not reveal a fee increase

Euronext's reported FX trading revenue grew almost three times as fast as its annual FX volume in 2025. Revenue increased 6.0% to €33.4 million while total volume increased 2.1% to approximately $7.032 trillion. Dividing the reported euro revenue by the dollar volume produces an implied revenue capture of about €4.75 for each $1 million traded, up 3.9% from approximately €4.57 in 2024.[1][2]

The calculation does not reveal a published fee rate. Euronext's FX revenue includes transaction fees and can also include port and market-data revenue, while the numerator is in euros and the volume denominator in U.S. dollars. Product mix, customer tiers, currency translation, timing and non-transaction income can all move the ratio. It is best understood as a reported-revenue intensity measure, not the price paid by a particular customer.[2]

The annual reconstruction

Euronext reported 2025 FX trading revenue of €33.376 million in its detailed financial tables, rounded to €33.4 million in the operating review. The comparable 2024 figure was €31.500 million. Annual Euronext FX volume was approximately $7,031,612 million in 2025 and $6,888,292 million in 2024. Using the rounded revenue values gives €4.7500 and €4.5730 of revenue per $1 million of volume respectively.[2][1]

The implied increase is 3.87%. That helps explain why reported revenue rose 6% on 2.1% volume growth. It does not, by itself, establish that Euronext raised headline trading fees. A greater share of higher-priced products, different client volumes, more port or data revenue, or exchange-rate translation could produce the same outcome.[2]

Euronext itself says strong volatility in the first half supported revenue, partly offset by depreciation of the U.S. dollar. On a like-for-like basis at constant currencies, FX revenue rose 10.3%, materially faster than the reported 6%. That gap shows why a euro-over-dollar ratio can understate operational pricing or mix strength when the dollar weakens against the reporting currency.[2]

The fourth quarter moved in the other direction

The annual uplift was not uniform. In the fourth quarter, FX revenue fell to about €7.4 million from €8.5 million while volume declined to approximately $1.561 trillion from $1.721 trillion. The implied quarterly revenue per $1 million fell from about €4.94 to €4.74, a decline of roughly 4.0%.[1]

The fourth-quarter ratio moved in the opposite direction from the full-year ratio. That prevents treating the annual result as a uniform quarterly pattern, but does not identify its cause. Currency, product mix, ancillary revenue and transaction pricing could offset one another; the aggregate figures cannot isolate their individual contributions.[1]

What Euronext FX sells

The universal registration document says spot and non-deliverable-forward FX trading revenue primarily consists of transaction-based fees charged per executed order and based on value traded. Port fees and market-data fees provide additional revenue. The venue offers a broad currency-pair set and serves institutional participants, so changes in the mix between spot, NDFs, currencies, customer tiers and connectivity services can alter revenue without a change in total headline volume.[2]

This is why “revenue capture” must be used carefully. In cash equities, exchanges often publish a formal yield in basis points. The FX section does not present an equivalent all-in yield. The calculated €4.75 per $1 million combines disclosed figures that were not necessarily designed as a single KPI. It is useful for trend analysis precisely because the company does not publish a directly comparable FX capture metric, but it is not a substitute for one.[2]

The scale is small inside Euronext, but strategically distinct

FX trading revenue of €33.4 million represented less than 2% of Euronext's €1.823 billion underlying revenue and income in 2025. The business is therefore not a group earnings driver on the scale of cash equities, fixed income, commodities, clearing or securities services. Yet it is strategically distinct because it operates a U.S.-dollar-heavy institutional market within a euro-reporting European infrastructure group.[1][2]

The FX unit's economics can therefore be masked at group level. A 3.9% increase in implied annual revenue intensity contributes only modestly to consolidated growth, but it may signal changes in customer mix, volatility monetisation or the balance between transaction and recurring connectivity income. Those are relevant competitive indicators for other institutional FX venues.[2]

Limits of the calculation

The denominator uses reported trading volume, which is a notional activity measure. It does not reflect the number of orders, average ticket size, maker-taker role, liquidity provision, internal netting or the proportion of volume receiving each pricing tier. The numerator includes euro translation and revenue categories that are not purely variable transaction fees.[2]

The ratio also should not be converted into basis points without preserving the cross-currency units. €4.75 on $1 million is not exactly 0.0475 basis points in a single currency because the euros must first be translated into dollars at a specified exchange rate. Avoiding that conversion keeps the calculation transparent and reproducible from the published numbers.[2]

Finally, a higher implied capture is not automatically better for market quality or worse for customers. It can result from valuable data and connectivity services, a shift toward products that cost more to operate, or a customer mix willing to pay for execution quality. It can also reflect reduced discounts. The accounts do not disaggregate those causes.[2]

The questions created by the finding

The results do not break the change into transaction pricing, client and product mix, market-data and port revenue, and currency translation. That limits what the ratio can answer. It is a transparent indicator of reported revenue relative to disclosed activity, rather than a measured change in the fee paid by a matched customer cohort.[1][2]

Constant-currency growth changes the diagnosis

Reported revenue rose 6%, but Euronext says like-for-like constant-currency FX revenue increased 10.3%. Because much of the business is denominated or economically driven in U.S. dollars, translating into euros can suppress reported growth when the dollar weakens. A constant-currency view therefore suggests that the underlying combination of volume, mix and pricing strengthened more than the euro accounts show.[2]

An approximate constant-currency comparison can also be calculated from the rounded growth rates:1.103 divided by 1.021, minus one, is about 8.0%. It answers a different question from the reported-euro ratio and inherits the company’s like-for-like scope and rounding. It should be labelled separately rather than silently substituted for the reported measure.[1]

Ancillary revenue can raise the ratio without changing transaction fees

Port and market-data charges do not necessarily vary one-for-one with trading volume. A customer can pay for connectivity throughout the year even if activity changes, and data subscriptions can grow with the client base. If those revenues rose, the all-in ratio would increase even with unchanged execution fees. The annual report does not provide the split needed to isolate that effect.[2]

Conversely, volume discounts and client-tier changes can lower transaction yield even as total revenue rises. Institutional venues often negotiate schedules based on activity and service packages. The implied ratio is therefore most useful as a prompt for disclosure, not as proof of a specific tariff decision.[2]

NDF and spot mix can alter monetisation

Euronext identifies both spot and non-deliverable-forward revenue within FX trading. NDFs involve different currencies, tenors, workflows and client needs from spot. A shift toward one product can change average fees, ticket sizes and data usage. Total notional growth does not reveal that mix.[2]

Currency-pair composition matters too. Major pairs can trade in large tickets at tight economics, while less liquid pairs may support different pricing. The venue's aggregate volume and revenue numbers do not permit a pair-level capture calculation, so the article cannot identify which market segment drove the improvement.[2]

The quarterly comparison checks consistency, not causation

A price increase could coexist with a lower quarterly aggregate ratio if currency or mix moved the other way. A higher ratio could likewise occur without a price increase. The fourth-quarter result therefore tests whether the annual pattern was consistent through the year; it cannot prove or disprove a specific pricing decision.[1]

The Q4 result also warns against annualising one quarter. Market volatility and customer composition vary, and the denominator is smaller. A fuller investigation would calculate the ratio monthly and compare it with volatility, dollar exchange rates, spot/NDF mix and customer tiers.[1][2]

The appropriate practice is therefore to show the reported €4.75-per-$1-million ratio, disclose the currency mismatch and cite the company's constant-currency growth separately. Converting the numerator with an assumed annual exchange rate would create an apparently precise adjusted capture figure that the source records do not support.[2]

The available figures establish a measurable divergence: reported FX revenue grew 6.0%, volume 2.1% and implied reported revenue per $1 million about 3.9%. At constant currencies, revenue grew still faster. The finding is not that Euronext imposed a 3.9% fee increase; it is that each unit of reported annual volume produced more reported euro revenue after the combined effects of pricing, mix, ancillary services and exchange rates.[1][2]

That is a useful market-structure signal because it goes beyond the usual volume headline. Institutional venues compete not only to process more notional but to change the quality and monetisation of that flow. Euronext's 2025 numbers show a modest volume increase accompanied by a stronger revenue result—and a fourth-quarter reversal that makes the underlying drivers worth examining.[1][2]

Report an error or submit an update