| Axis | Apex One | Meridian | Halyard | Coastline | Brightbay | Northgate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Options per contract | $0.00 | $0.65 | $1.00 | $0.00 | $0.50 | $0.00 |
| Order types accepted | 12 | 9 | 14 | 7 | 11 | 6 |
| Options approval | Tiers 1–4 | Tiers 1–3 | Tiers 1–5 | Tiers 1–2 | Tiers 1–4 | Tiers 1–2 |
| Fractional shares | yes | yes | no | yes | yes | no |
| Market data included | Level 2 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
Without JavaScript the table shows every platform at once, which is the same information without the selection step.
Figures are illustrative and held in the page; nothing is fetched and nothing is stored. Commission schedules and approval tiers change; a provider's own published schedule is the only authoritative source for its terms.
What each axis is measuring
Options per contract is the platform's own commission, excluding the regulatory fees every US broker passes through on sales. Order types accepted counts the distinct instructions available to a retail account, including conditional and bracket constructions, the vocabulary you have for managing a position rather than merely opening one.
Options approval records the tier structure rather than a single number, because the numbering differs between brokers and a level is not comparable across them; the two-platform comparison works through what each tier actually permits. Fractional shares is a yes or no, with the caveat that a fraction is an internal book entry rather than a market position. Market data included distinguishes a top-of-book quote from depth, which matters most exactly where quotes are thin.
What a comparison table cannot settle
Every axis here has one correct answer at a given date, and none of them answers the question readers actually arrive with, which is whether a platform is right for them. That question needs a weighting: how much order-type breadth is worth against how much market-data depth. And the weighting belongs to the person doing the choosing. A table that ranks has quietly supplied one on your behalf, usually the one that suits whoever built the table.
There is also an axis that no comparison of this kind can show: what price you actually receive. With commissions at zero across much of the market, execution quality is the larger variable, and it lives in each broker's routing and execution-quality disclosures rather than on any feature page. Those documents are dry, published under the same requirements by every US broker, and far more informative about cost than the row labeled commission.
Why the selection is in the URL
A comparison is only useful if it can be handed to someone. Writing the chosen platforms into the address bar means the link reproduces the exact view, with no account, no server and no stored state. It also means the tool degrades honestly: with JavaScript off the table simply shows every platform, which is the same information without the filtering step.
About the compare tool
Why does the comparison not rank the platforms?
Because ranking requires a view about which axis matters most, and that view is yours rather than this site's. A reader who places only market orders is unaffected by order-type breadth; a reader who needs bracket orders is constrained by it absolutely. The table reports the axes and leaves the weighting alone.
Can I share a comparison?
Yes. The selection is written into the address bar, so copying the URL reproduces exactly the platforms you picked. Nothing is stored on a server and no account is involved; the state lives entirely in the link.
Are the figures live?
No, and deliberately so. They are illustrative values held in the page itself, which is why the tool works offline and never depends on an API. Real commission schedules and approval tiers change, and a provider's own fee schedule is the only authoritative source for its pricing.
Why only five axes?
Because each of the five has a single correct answer at a given date and each changes what you can actually do. Interface quality, research tools and customer service are real considerations and none of them are mechanical facts, so putting them in a comparison table would give an opinion the appearance of a measurement.