1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
MIC vs MplusFX: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of MIC (Mactor International) and MplusFX (MplusFX) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Institutions licensed across Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
- MIC 6D Score
- 1.0
- MplusFX 6D Score
- 1.0
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
MIC and MplusFX are statistically tied in composite 6D scoring (1.0 vs 1.0)
On supervisory breadth, MIC holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas MplusFX holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s). Allocators should inspect the individual licence numbers and contracting legal entities below before onboarding.
6-Dimension Quantitative Scorecard Comparison
Head-to-head breakdown across all 6 proprietary evaluation dimensions (0.0–10.0 scale).
| Evaluation Dimension | Methodology Weight | MIC | MplusFX | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: MIC vs MplusFX
Vector comparison exhibit generated from live supervisory snapshot metrics.
Regulatory Standing, Entity & Platform Comparison
Structural comparison of supervisory authorisations, domicile, execution terminals, and risk telemetry.
| Audit Attribute | MIC | MplusFX |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Mactor International | MplusFX |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | None on file | None on file |
| Registered Domicile / Address | HK | International |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Forex | Forex |
| Execution Software & Terminals | Proprietary / Web Platform | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | English | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare MIC and MplusFX against other regulated peers in our institutions licensed across asia-pacific and the middle east slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: MIC vs MplusFX
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: MIC or MplusFX?
Both MIC and MplusFX hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, MIC maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas MplusFX maintains 0 recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s). Always confirm the specific subsidiary onboarding your account on the official regulator register.
How do the 6D quantitative compliance scores compare between MIC and MplusFX?
In APAC Capital Brief's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), MIC records an Overall Score of 1.0 (Risk & Licensing: 1.0, Brand: 1.0, Market Influence: 1.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with MplusFX at 1.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 1.0, Brand: 1.0, Market Influence: 1.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do MIC and MplusFX differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
MIC lists Forex with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while MplusFX lists Forex with execution software [proprietary/web execution]. Counterparties should verify FIX/API connectivity, server routing topology, and negative balance protection per entity.
Which counterparty carries lower regulatory warning and complaint exposure: MIC or MplusFX?
MIC carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while MplusFX carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s).
Structured against supervisory register snapshots and public regulatory filings. Verify your contracting legal entity and current authorisation status directly on the issuing regulator’s official register before transacting.