IBKR closed 8.28% of UK investment complaints within three days; eToro and Trading 212 exceeded 65%

A 63.62-point gap within the investment category

Interactive Brokers (U.K.) Limited reported that 8.28% of its investment complaints closed in the first half of 2026 were resolved within three days. eToro (UK) Limited reported 65.32%, and Trading 212 UK Limited 71.90%. Comparing the same FCA product category gives a 63.62-percentage-point gap between Trading 212 and Interactive Brokers and a 57.04-point gap between eToro and Interactive Brokers.[1]

The difference remains substantial after removing Trading 212’s banking, credit-card and pension complaints. It establishes different handling profiles, not that one firm delivered better service overall. Case complexity, the process used to resolve complaints and the mix of issues within investments can differ. The FCA table does not explain which factors produced these results.[1]

The raw totals are not directly comparable

Trading 212 reported 3,278 opened complaints, the largest total of the three. But only 2,251 were categorised as investments. The row also contained 995 banking-and-credit-card complaints and 32 pension complaints. It closed 3,138 complaints in total, including 2,160 investment complaints. eToro’s 631 opened and 620 closed complaints were reported in the investment category, as were Interactive Brokers’ 1,874 opened and 1,764 closed complaints. Comparing the totals without that distinction would treat different activity sets as though they were the same.[1]

The FCA publishes contextual measures as well as counts, but the number of closed complaints alone is not a rate per active customer or transaction. Customers, accounts and trading activity are different denominators. This comparison therefore uses the within-category share of closed complaints in each time bucket. Matching investments improves comparability without controlling for the subject, difficulty or severity of each complaint.[1]

Closing within eight weeks is the dominant IBKR outcome

Interactive Brokers reported that 88.21% of closed complaints took more than three days but no more than eight weeks. When added to its 8.28% rapid-closure figure, the disclosed timing buckets account for 96.49% of closures. The remaining 3.51 percentage points can include complaints closed after eight weeks and rounding effects. eToro’s two timing buckets sum to 99.67%, leaving 0.33 points. Trading 212’s published buckets sum to exactly 100.00%.[1]

Most of Interactive Brokers’ closures were therefore recorded within eight weeks; the principal observed difference is the low share inside three days. More complex cases could contribute, as could different handling processes, but neither explanation is established by the aggregate data. A final-response deadline is also not identical to final case closure: this table alone cannot determine whether any particular regulatory response requirement was breached.[1]

Upheld rates point in a different direction

The investment-category upheld rates were 18.03% at Interactive Brokers, 6.71% at Trading 212 and 2.26% at eToro. These measure outcomes recorded by the firms under the reporting framework. They are not external findings on every dispute. Different complaint subjects and decision patterns can affect the rates; speed and upheld share measure separate aspects of handling.[1]

The combination is nevertheless informative. Interactive Brokers had the lowest three-day closure share and the highest upheld share of the three. eToro had a much faster closure profile and the lowest upheld share. Trading 212 sat between them on upheld outcomes while reporting the fastest closure profile. Those are facts about the published aggregates; they are not proof of causation. Firm-level case files, complaint categories and customer denominators would be needed to explain the mechanism.[1]

Period flows do not reveal the closing backlog

Investment complaints opened exceeded closures by 91 at Trading 212, 110 at Interactive Brokers and 11 at eToro. With stable scope and no other adjustments, openings minus closures would reconcile the increase in outstanding cases. The table does not give the opening stock, so these differences cannot identify the closing backlog, its age or how many complaints opened during this half-year remained unresolved. Closures can include cases opened before January.[1]

The same caution applies to rapid closure. A firm may operate a front-line process that resolves simple complaints immediately and routes difficult cases to specialist teams. Another may categorise or acknowledge cases differently before closure. Without the underlying workflow, the table shows the outcome of each reporting system rather than a controlled experiment. The size of the observed gap is still real; what remains unresolved is why it exists.[1]

The disclosure threshold leaves most firms outside the comparison

The FCA firm table is designed to capture businesses with substantial complaint volumes. Its publication threshold includes firms reporting at least 500 complaints in a half-year or 1,000 in a year, and the regulator says the table covers around 98% of complaints reported by firms. A smaller broker absent from the table may have received complaints below the threshold; absence is not evidence of a perfect record. The publication is strong at showing the major flows, but it cannot support a complete market ranking.[2]

More detailed complaint subjects, severity, redress and later ombudsman outcomes would help explain the timing profiles. Category matching is already possible in the published table and has been applied here. It should not be replaced by the firms’ all-product totals simply because those totals appear in an aggregate view.[1]

How the product filter changes the comparison

Trading 212’s all-product figure of 73.49% for rapid closures differs from its investment-category figure of 71.90%. Its all-product upheld share is 10.42%, compared with 6.71% for investments. The public table supplies both sets of category-level metrics. Using the aggregate percentages with investment-only comparators would overstate the rapid-closure gap by 1.59 percentage points and misstate the outcome comparison.[1]

The company reported 3,278 openings across all products: 2,251 investments, 995 banking and credit cards, and 32 pensions. The investment row is therefore the appropriate match for the eToro and Interactive Brokers rows selected here. Even then, the category is broad: securities transfers, executions, access and other investment disputes need not require similar work to resolve.[1]

Three-day closure can represent very different processes

A complaint can close quickly because the facts are simple, the firm immediately accepts an error or the customer accepts an explanation. It can also close because the firm decides swiftly that the complaint should not be upheld. The field does not reveal whether redress was paid, whether the customer later approached the Financial Ombudsman Service or whether the same underlying problem affected other customers. Speed is operationally important, but it is not a substitute for outcome quality.[2][1]

Longer handling can reflect record reconstruction, information awaited from customers or third parties, or internal workflow. These are possible explanations, not findings about these firms. The published elapsed-time buckets cannot distinguish them. They identify a comparison worth following over time without establishing an adverse explanation for any one firm.[1]

The upheld percentage is not the redress amount

An 18.03% upheld rate at Interactive Brokers means the firm upheld some element of that share of closed complaints under the reporting framework. It does not show how much money was paid, whether the complaint was upheld in full or whether non-financial remediation was provided. Ten minor corrections can produce a higher rate than one severe case with substantial redress. Public interpretation needs both frequency and severity.[2][1]

Questions that would resolve the comparison

Further evidence would be most useful if it linked complaint subject to elapsed time and final outcome. For each firm, the relevant question is whether rapid and slower closures involved different issue types, upheld shares and redress. The table already provides the product-category split; what remains missing is the case-level explanation within that category.[1]

A repeat series would distinguish structure from one period

One half-year can be affected by a product incident, migration, system change or reporting correction. Repeating the calculation over successive periods would show whether Interactive Brokers persistently resolves few cases in three days or whether the first half of 2026 was unusual. It would also show whether upheld rates converge after operational changes. The FCA publishes the raw ingredients for that series, but publishers must preserve historical rows because live sortable tables can change presentation.[2][1]

The most defensible conclusion remains both strong and limited. The three firms did not report remotely similar complaint-handling profiles. Interactive Brokers concentrated closures in the period after three days and within eight weeks; eToro and Trading 212 reported most closures inside three days. That difference is large enough to matter to customers and boards. It is not complete enough to become a league table without category, denominator and outcome evidence.[1]

Report an error or submit an update