Skip to main content

Options Fees Compared

Options trading fee structures remain stubbornly opaque despite decades of efforts to simplify securities trading costs. While equity trading commissions have converged toward zero across brokers, options trading still generates per-contract commissions, exercise fees, assignment fees, and bid-ask spreads that collectively amplify trading costs substantially compared to equity trading. An options trader executing a 10-contract spread position incurs multiple layers of charges: purchase commissions, potential assignment fees, potential exercise fees, plus bid-ask spreads that can dwarf explicit commissions on illiquid contracts. Understanding options fees requires examining commission structures, distinguishing between different fee types that compound per trade, comparing brokers across the specific options trading strategies you employ, and recognizing that the lowest-commission broker may not prove cheapest when all costs are considered. For frequent options traders, options fee differences between brokers can exceed $5,000-$10,000 annually despite seemingly modest per-contract differences.

Quick definition: Options trading fees encompass per-contract commissions on purchase and sale, exercise and assignment fees when contracts are exercised or assigned, and bid-ask spreads representing the cost of executing options trades at market prices.

Key Takeaways​

  • Options trading commissions typically range from $0.50-$1.50 per contract, with some brokers offering tiered pricing or promotional rates
  • Exercise fees (charged when you exercise an option you own) and assignment fees (charged when you're assigned an obligation to buy/sell shares) add substantial costs to active options strategies
  • Bid-ask spreads in options markets are substantially wider than equity spreads, particularly for illiquid contracts, representing the largest cost for many retail options traders
  • Broker options approval levels restrict which traders can access certain strategies; approval requirements correlate with experience and account size
  • Brokers frequently subsidize options trading with lower fees (or zero fees) to attract options traders, compensating through margin lending and order flow revenue

The Structure of Options Commissions​

Options trading commissions represent a distinct cost structure from equity commissions. Most brokers abandoned equity commissions (or never implemented them on new accounts), but all brokers charge for options trading. The standard structure charges per contract for both opening and closing trades. A typical broker might charge $0.65 per contract: buying a call costs $0.65, selling the call costs $0.65, for a total round-trip cost of $1.30 per contract.

Options contracts represent standardized units of 100 shares. When you buy a call contract, you're purchasing the right to buy 100 shares. The $0.65 contract commission is a flat charge, not a percentage of the contract's value. This means the percentage cost varies inversely with contract price. A $10 call option ($1,000 contract value) at $0.65 commission represents 0.065% commission. A $0.50 call option ($50 contract value) at the same $0.65 commission represents 1.3% commission.

This structure inverts the traditional economics: low-price contracts carry disproportionately high percentage costs. Options traders consistently favor in-the-money contracts (which have higher prices and lower percentage commission costs) and avoid out-of-the-money contracts (which have lower prices and higher percentage costs), even when out-of-the-money contracts better align with their trading thesis. The commission structure creates subtle distortions in trader behavior.

Commission pricing varies across brokers. A sample comparison on a 10-contract options purchase:

  • Interactive Brokers: 10 contracts × $1.00 = $10.00 total ($1.00 per contract)
  • Charles Schwab: 10 contracts × $0.65 = $6.50 total
  • TD Ameritrade: 10 contracts × $0.65 = $6.50 total
  • E*TRADE: 10 contracts × $0.65 = $6.50 total
  • Webull: 10 contracts × $0.00 = $0.00 (zero options commissions)
  • Robinhood: Variable tiering; base $0.00-$0.50 per contract

The variation reflects different broker strategies. Interactive Brokers targets professional traders willing to pay for superior execution; it charges per-contract rates but offers tight bid-ask spreads that professional traders value. Traditional brokers (Schwab, Ameritrade, E*TRADE) standardized on $0.65 per contract as competitive rates, accepting that this price point attracts acceptable volume. Robinhood and Webull offer free or near-free options trading, compensating through margin lending and order flow.

Exercise and Assignment Fees​

Options trading involves multiple potential fee events beyond commissions on opening and closing trades. When you own an options contract and exercise it (converting the option into shares), brokers charge exercise fees: typically $0.10-$0.20 per share exercised. A call option exercised for 100 shares costs $10-$20 in exercise fees.

Assignment occurs when you've sold options and the counterparty exercises them, forcing you to fulfill the obligation. Selling a call obligates you to sell 100 shares at the strike price if the buyer exercises; if they do exercise, you face an assignment fee (typically $0.10-$0.20 per share) to fulfill the obligation.

These fees compound for active options traders. A covered call strategy (buying 100 shares, selling one call against them) might proceed as follows:

  1. Buy 100 shares: $0 commission (equity)
  2. Sell call: $0.65 commission
  3. Assignment: 100 shares × $0.15 per share = $15.00
  4. Total exercise/assignment cost: $15.65

If the call is assigned, you net an additional $15.65 in fees beyond the initial selling commission. For strategies involving multiple legs (spreads, straddles), these fees multiply.

Some brokers waive exercise fees for accounts meeting thresholds (large balances, frequent traders). Others tier fees based on account activity. Fidelity offers free exercise and assignment at certain account tiers, while Charles Schwab maintains consistent per-share fees across accounts.

Bid-Ask Spreads in Options Markets​

The bid-ask spread in options markets represents a larger cost than equity spreads for most retail traders. While equity spreads for liquid stocks measure in cents (typically $0.01), options spreads measure in dollars. A liquid option might have a $0.05 spread (bid price $5.00, ask $5.05), while less liquid options have spreads of $0.25, $0.50, or wider.

Options spreads vary dramatically based on:

Underlying Stock Liquidity: Options on highly liquid stocks (Apple, Microsoft, Tesla) feature tight spreads because high trading volume supports tight market maker margins. Options on small-cap stocks have much wider spreads.

Option Moneyness: At-the-money options (strike price close to current stock price) have tighter spreads than far out-of-the-money options. Market makers compete tighter on popular contracts.

Days to Expiration: Near-term options (expiring soon) have tighter spreads than far-dated options. Liquidity concentrates in near-term contracts.

Trading Volume: High-volume contracts like major index options have penny-wide spreads; rarely-traded contracts might have dollar-wide spreads.

A concrete example illustrates impact. Suppose you trade a 10-contract spread:

  • Cost to establish: 10 contracts (buy) × average spread + 10 contracts (sell) × spread
  • On tight spreads ($0.05 average): 20 contracts × $5 (cents to dollars conversion) = $100 round-trip spread cost
  • On wide spreads ($0.25 average): 20 contracts × $25 = $500 round-trip spread cost

The $400 difference in spreads dwarfs per-contract commission differences between brokers. A trader reducing commission from $0.65 to $0.00 per contract saves $13 on the same 20-contract round-trip while facing $100-$500 spread costs. Commission competition is irrelevant relative to spread impact.

This explains why options traders should prioritize execution quality (tight spreads) over commission rates (which increasingly approach zero). A broker with 0.5-cent tighter average spreads delivers more value than one with 25-cent lower commissions.

Approval Levels and Access Restrictions​

Brokers restrict options trading access based on approval levels. The SEC permits brokers to categorize customers by experience and require different levels of approval for different strategy types.

Most brokers distinguish several approval levels:

Level 0 (No Options Access): No options trading permitted. Customers must request upgrade to access options.

Level 1 (Covered Calls Only): Customers can sell covered calls (selling call options against shares they own). This is considered lower-risk because the obligation is secured by shares; losses are limited.

Level 2 (Long Options): Customers can buy (long) calls and puts. These are unlimited-loss-potential strategies for puts (if stock drops to zero) and calls (gains are unlimited). This level requires demonstrating options understanding.

Level 3 (Spreads): Customers can trade spreads (combinations of long and short options). This level requires documented experience and understanding.

Level 4 (All Strategies): Customers can trade all options strategies, including naked short calls (selling calls without shares to cover), naked short puts (unlimited-loss strategies), and other complex structures. This level requires substantial experience and high account balances.

Approval levels determine what strategies a broker permits. A customer approved only for Level 1 cannot execute spreads even if they prefer spreads over covered calls. Some brokers are permissive (approving Level 3-4 quickly); others are restrictive (requiring documented experience and minimum balances).

The approval process sometimes involves application fees ($0-$50), phone interviews, and documentation of trading history. Some brokers offer instant approval (scanning trading history); others require review periods. For traders eager to trade options, broker approval policies factor into broker selection.

Comparison Across Broker Strategies​

Brokers employ different fee strategies targeting different customer segments:

Volume-Focused Strategy: Interactive Brokers charges per-contract commissions ($1.00) but provides tight execution spreads. The strategy attracts high-volume traders whose lower-spread execution saves more than they pay in commissions. A trader executing 500 contracts monthly pays $500 in commissions but saves $1,000+ through tighter spreads.

Flat-Rate Strategy: Schwab, E*TRADE, and TD Ameritrade use $0.65 per contract rates as standardized pricing across all retail customers. The strategy simplifies customer comparisons and provides clear cost structures without volume tiers.

Promotional/Free Strategy: Robinhood and Webull offer zero-commission options trading. They profit through margin lending, order flow, and broader platform engagement. The strategy maximizes customer acquisition by eliminating pricing objections to options trading.

Hybrid Strategy: Some brokers (Fidelity, Merrill Edge) offer tiered pricing where high-balance or high-volume accounts receive fee waivers. Base customers pay $0.65; premium customers pay $0.00.

None of these strategies is universally best; different traders optimize for different priorities. A professional trader executing thousands of contracts monthly prioritizes tight spreads and might use Interactive Brokers despite per-contract fees. A retail trader executing dozens of contracts quarterly might optimize for zero commissions at Robinhood or Webull. A moderate-volume trader might find Schwab's standardized $0.65 pricing optimal for cost predictability.

Real-World Cost Examples​

A concrete example illustrates how fees compound across real trading scenarios. Consider a covered call strategy executed monthly: buying 100 shares ($10,000 position typically), then selling a monthly call against them.

Monthly covered call execution:

  1. Buy 100 shares: $0 commission
  2. Sell call: $0.65 (one contract × $0.65 commission)
  3. Covered call assigned (stock called away): 100 × $0.15 = $15.00
  4. Repurchase 100 shares (reestablish position): $0 commission
  5. Total cost: $15.65 per month, or roughly 0.19% of $10,000 position value

Over a year, executing this strategy monthly at Schwab ($0.65 per-contract commission, $0.15 exercise/assignment fees):

  • Annual cost: $15.65 × 12 = $187.80

At Robinhood (zero per-contract commission, zero exercise/assignment fees):

  • Annual cost: $0 (assuming no other fees apply)

At Interactive Brokers ($1.00 per-contract commission, $0.10 exercise/assignment fees):

  • Monthly cost: $1.00 + $10.00 = $11.00
  • Annual cost: $132.00

The covered call trader at Robinhood saves $187.80 yearly; the covered call trader at Interactive Brokers saves $55.80 yearly (vs Schwab), despite Robinhood's zero-fee advantage disappearing if spread costs exceed $0.02 per contract.

Another example: an iron condor strategy (selling two out-of-money spreads, one call side and one put side). A 10-contract iron condor executed monthly:

Monthly execution:

  • Buy 10 put spreads: 20 legs (10 long, 10 short) × commission
  • Sell 10 call spreads: 20 legs × commission
  • Total: 40 contract legs per month

At $0.65 per contract (Schwab): 40 × $0.65 = $26.00 per month, or $312/year At $1.00 per contract (Interactive Brokers): 40 × $1.00 = $40.00 per month, or $480/year At zero commissions (Robinhood): $0/year (assuming zero spread advantage)

For spread strategies, the commission differences matter more than covered calls because more contract legs are involved. An iron condor trader executing 10 spreads monthly saves $3,360-$5,760 yearly by choosing zero-commission Robinhood versus Interactive Brokers' $1.00 per-contract pricing.

However, if Robinhood's spreads are average 3 cents wider than Interactive Brokers on out-of-the-money options, and the trader executes 40-contract legs monthly:

  • Robinhood spread cost: 40 legs × $0.03 average additional spread × $100 per penny per contract leg = $120/month = $1,440/year
  • This erases the commission advantage; Interactive Brokers becomes cheaper despite higher commission

The key point: true cost of ownership requires comparing all costs (commissions + spreads + fees), not commissions alone.

Common Mistakes​

A frequent error compares brokers based on per-contract commissions while ignoring execution spreads. A broker with $0.00 per-contract commissions but average $0.10 spreads might prove more expensive than a broker with $0.65 commissions but $0.01 average spreads, particularly for illiquid options.

Another common mistake is executing options trades as market orders rather than limit orders. A market order to buy an option contract might execute at the ask price; a limit order executes at a better price if available. Patient limit-order execution saves substantial spread costs while costing nothing. Impatient traders using market orders pay wide spreads without realizing the impact.

Exercising options when closing the position is cheaper represents another mistake. If you own a profitable call option, you might exercise it (pay exercise fees) to acquire shares, then sell shares separately. Alternatively, you could sell the call option directly (pay closing commission only), avoiding exercise fees. The second approach is almost always cheaper but requires understanding the mechanics.

Neglecting to request fee waivers for high-volume trading is another missed opportunity. Many brokers discretionarily waive exercise fees or offer reduced commissions for high-volume customers. Customers rarely request; brokers rarely volunteer. An options trader executing hundreds of contracts monthly might eliminate exercise fees entirely by requesting a fee waiver, saving thousands annually.

Holding options into expiration and allowing automatic assignment is another cost-generating mistake. Assignment creates fees; closing the position before expiration in secondary market avoids those fees. While sometimes forced by broker policies on margin accounts, planning to avoid assignment fees is preferable.

FAQ​

Q: Why do options trading commissions exist while equity commissions have been eliminated? A: Equity trading commissions were eliminated partly due to neobank broker disruption and regulatory focus on best execution. Options markets remain less commoditized; fewer competitors focus on options, reducing commission pressure. Options markets are also more complex, allowing justification for higher fees. As competition increases, options commissions are slowly decreasing.

Q: What's the impact of assignment on options trading economics? A: Assignment fees add material costs to short options positions. Selling a call generates a small selling commission but creates large assignment fees if assigned. Over a year of covered calls, assignment fees might exceed initial selling commissions 10:1. Assignment fees are often overlooked but represent significant cost contributors.

Q: How do bid-ask spreads compare between brokers for options? A: Bid-ask spreads are market-determined, not broker-determined. All brokers execute in the same options exchanges; the spreads they quote reflect market microstructure. However, some brokers route orders to market makers offering tighter spreads; others optimize for order flow revenue and sacrifice execution quality. The difference is subtle—a broker might achieve 0.01-0.05 tighter average spreads through superior routing—but compounds over volume.

Q: Should I choose a broker based on options approval levels? A: Yes, if you intend to trade options strategies currently unavailable at potential brokers. If a broker will approve you only for covered calls but you want to trade spreads, that broker won't suit you. Review approval policies alongside fees when selecting brokers for options trading.

Q: Why are out-of-the-money options so expensive to trade? A: Wide bid-ask spreads on out-of-the-money options reflect lower trading volume. Market makers in less-traded contracts widen spreads to compensate for inventory risk. The fewer market makers competing in a contract, the wider spreads become. Brokers cannot influence these spreads; they're market-driven.

Q: Is it cheaper to trade longer-dated options or near-term options? A: Near-term options generally have tighter spreads due to higher volume. Longer-dated options (LEAPS, options expiring months or years in future) have wider spreads. If you intend to hold the position long-term, starting with a near-term option and rolling forward periodically sometimes costs less than purchasing a LEAP outright, despite rolling commissions.

Q: Do brokers offer options trading without owning the underlying stock? A: Yes, with appropriate approval levels. Level 2 approval permits long calls and puts without owning underlying stock. However, buying puts or calls without owning underlying involves significant risks; regulatory approvals require experience documentation.

Q: How do stock splits affect options trading costs? A: When stocks split, options contracts adjust. A 2:1 split converts one contract for 100 shares into two contracts for 50 shares each. This multiplies commission and assignment fee costs. This is unavoidable and represents a hidden cost of holding options through stock splits. Closing before splits avoids these costs.

Summary​

Options trading fees encompass per-contract commissions ($0.00-$1.50 depending on broker), exercise and assignment fees ($0.10-$0.20 per share), and bid-ask spreads that typically range from $0.05 to several dollars depending on option liquidity. For many retail options traders, bid-ask spreads represent larger costs than explicit commissions, yet receive less attention during broker selection. The lowest-commission broker—or zero-commission brokers like Robinhood and Webull—may not prove cheapest overall if spreads prove wider than competitors' spreads. Brokers employ distinct fee strategies: volume-focused brokers like Interactive Brokers charge per-contract commissions but offer tight spreads for high-volume traders; flat-rate brokers like Schwab use standardized $0.65 pricing; promotional brokers offer zero commissions while compensating through margin lending and order flow. Covered call strategies cost 0.15-0.20% annually in fees, while spread strategies cost proportionally more due to multiple contract legs. Assignment fees, often overlooked, can exceed selling commissions 10:1 annually for strategies resulting in frequent assignment. Approval levels restrict which strategies brokers permit; customers must request appropriate approval levels to access their intended strategies. Sophisticated options traders compare true cost of ownership across commissions, spreads, and ancillary fees—not commissions alone—when selecting brokers and strategies. The economics of options trading reward patient limit-order execution (avoiding wide market-order spreads), planning to avoid assignment, and selecting brokers aligned with both fee structures and execution quality for the specific strategies employed.

Next​

Broker Research Tools →