Break-Even After Fees Calculator
The exit price that returns your capital once both fees are paid.
How it works
Break-even is not entry plus twice the fee. The closing fee is charged on the exit value, which is the very number being solved for, so the exit appears on both sides of the equation. Setting profit equal to total fees and collecting terms gives entry × (1 + entry fee) ÷ (1 − exit fee) for a long.
The difference from the approximation is small at retail fee levels and grows with the fee. What matters more is the second figure: leverage does not move the break-even price at all, but it divides your margin, so the identical round trip costs twenty times more of your posted capital at 100× than at 5×.
Fees on a specific exchange
These pages already carry the venue's own published numbers, so there is nothing to look up — and each cites the documentation it was built from.
Related calculators
How the Break-Even After Fees Calculator works
A break-even calculator answers a question most traders estimate and get slightly wrong: where does the price have to go before the trade has paid for itself? Not the entry plus twice the fee — the closing fee is charged on the exit value, which is the number you are solving for.
Why the obvious formula is not quite right
Setting profit equal to total fees for a long gives (exit − entry) × qty = entry × qty × feeIn + exit × qty × feeOut. The exit appears on both sides, and collecting terms produces entry × (1 + feeIn) ÷ (1 − feeOut) rather than entry × (1 + feeIn + feeOut).
At retail fee levels the two differ in the fourth decimal, which is why the approximation survives. It stops being harmless when fees are high, when the position is scalped for a handful of basis points, or when someone builds an automated strategy on the wrong constant and wonders why the backtest and the account disagree.
Fees are a margin cost, not a notional cost
Quoted as a share of position value, a round trip of 0.1% sounds like nothing. Quoted against the margin actually posted, it is 0.5% at 5× and 10% at 100× — the same trade, the same fee schedule, a twentyfold difference in what it costs the capital at risk.
This is the part high leverage advertising leaves out. Before the market has moved at all, a 100× position must earn a tenth of its margin back just to break even, and it must do so while sitting a fraction of a percent from liquidation.
Maker and taker are not interchangeable
A maker order rests on the book and adds liquidity; a taker order removes it. Most venues charge two to three times more for the latter, and some pay makers a rebate. Entering with a limit order that fills is therefore materially cheaper than crossing the spread.
The asymmetry worth planning around is on the exit: a stop-loss and a liquidation both execute as taker, always. Any estimate that assumes maker rates on both legs is describing the trade you hoped for rather than the one that happens when you are wrong.
FAQ
Does leverage change my break-even price?
No. Break-even depends on the entry price and the two fee rates, nothing else. What leverage changes is how much that fee costs relative to the margin you posted — which is the figure that actually determines whether high leverage is affordable.
Should I use maker or taker rates?
Use the rate matching how the order will actually fill. A limit entry that rests is maker; crossing the spread is taker. For the exit, taker is the honest assumption unless you are certain you will close on a resting limit order — stops and liquidations never fill as maker.
Do funding payments count towards break-even?
Not in this calculation, which covers trading fees only. On a position held across settlements, funding is often the larger cost — price it separately in the funding calculator and add it to the round trip.
How much do fees matter for a swing trade?
Far less than for scalping. A 0.1% round trip against a 5% target is 2% of the profit; against a 0.3% target it is a third of it. The shorter the hold and the tighter the target, the more the fee schedule decides whether the strategy is viable at all.