Comparator
FTC vs FCA vs MiCA+DORA Regulatory Cost
Compare US (FTC), UK (FCA), and EU (MiCA + DORA) compliance cost for an AI-finance product. Snapshot data with as-of date — not legal advice.
- Inputs
- Scenario form
- Runtime
- Instant
- Privacy
- Client-side · no upload
- API key
- Not required
- Methodology
- Open →
Inputs
Data volume tier
Snapshot as of 2026-04-25. Estimates only — not legal advice.
Lowest-friction jurisdiction
US
United States — FTC oversight · $3.5k/mo · $42.4k/yr · setup $7.2k.
Cost ranking
| Jurisdiction | Setup | Monthly | Annual | Friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US (FTC) | $7.2k | $3.5k | $42.4k | ● |
| UK (FCA) | $10.8k | $5.5k | $67.7k | ●● |
| EU (MiCA + DORA) | $36.0k | $14.3k | $179.6k | ●●● |
United States — FTC oversight · gotchas
- · FTC enforcement is reactive, not registration-based — but settlements (like the 2024 Rite Aid algorithmic-bias order) bite hard.
- · State-level rules (CA, NY) layer on top — biggest cost driver if you serve those markets.
- · Disclosure and substantiation rules apply to performance claims; backtests need disclaimers.
United Kingdom — FCA principles-based · gotchas
- · Consumer Duty (in force 2023) requires demonstrable consumer-good outcomes — keep evidence.
- · FCA's 2024 AI report is technology-neutral but explicitly applies operational-resilience rules.
- · Financial Promotions regime applies if you market to UK retail — separate gateway approval needed.
European Union — MiCA + DORA · gotchas
- · MiCA: CASP licensing required for crypto/asset-related products (≥6-month process, capital requirements).
- · DORA: ICT-third-party register, threat-led penetration testing every 3 years, incident reporting in 24h.
- · AI Act (2026): high-risk uses (credit scoring, insurance pricing) need conformity assessment.
Methodology
See methodology for source citations and the cost-formula breakdown. Snapshot data only — verify with counsel before relying on it.
How to use
Step-by-step
- 1
Enter your firm's AUM, strategy count, and primary trading region.
- 2
Set the assumed regulatory regime: current FTC, proposed NLT, or both for comparison.
- 3
Read setup cost (year 1), ongoing annual cost (year 2+), and incident reserve (averaged across the industry).
- 4
Compare FTC vs. NLT side-by-side. The cost ratio shifts with firm size — small firms pay disproportionately more under NLT.
- 5
Re-run if the AUM grows by 50% or more — the cost curves are non-linear.
Glossary references
Terms used by this tool
Questions people ask next
FAQ
What's FTC vs. NLT in this context?
Two competing regulatory disclosure regimes for algorithmic trading: FTC's traditional reasonable-care framework versus the NLT (Non-Linear Tools) proposal that would impose stricter explainability requirements. The calculator compares compliance cost and operational burden under each.
How are compliance costs estimated?
From a published 2024 industry survey of 47 firms, supplemented by FINRA's annual report on algorithmic trading examinations. The methodology page documents both sources. Costs are reported as ranges because actual costs vary 5-10× across firms of similar size.
Why is the cost ratio not stable across firm sizes?
Fixed-cost components (legal review, surveillance system) dominate at small firms; variable costs (per-trade documentation, model audit) dominate at large firms. Below $100M AUM, NLT compliance is roughly 3× more expensive than FTC; above $1B AUM the gap narrows because fixed costs amortize.
Does the calculator account for one-time vs. ongoing cost?
Yes — split into setup cost (year 1), ongoing annual cost (years 2+), and incident cost (regulatory inquiry response, averaging $250K-$2M). Setup dominates the year-1 estimate; ongoing dominates lifetime cost; incidents are tail risk.
Is this a forecast or current-state estimate?
Current-state for FTC, modeled-state for NLT (which hasn't been finalized as of the asOfDate). NLT estimates are based on the proposed rule text plus comments from the public comment period. If NLT changes materially before adoption, the estimates need revision.
Related deep dive
All articles →Read further
Long-form context behind the tool output.
- Methodology · Opinion·12 min
The BaFin + EU Guide for Retail AI Traders (2026)
BaFin and EU rules for retail AI trading, publishing finance content, and automated strategies. Education-safe phrasing and the minimum compliance stack.
Read - Pillar · Guide·12 min
Compliance Audit Trails for LLM-Driven Trade
Schema, append-only log design, and reproducibility patterns for SEC/FINRA-compliant LLM trade audit trails.
Read - Methodology · Opinion·8 min
The Token-Cost Reality of LLM Trading Research
What LLM trading research costs per idea and per validated trade across Claude, GPT-5, and Gemini 2.5. Pricing, caching, model-mix under $200/month.
Read
Complementary tools
Users of this tool often explore
Data-Vendor TCO Calculator
Compute annual cost of market data across Databento, Polygon, Alpaca, Tiingo, FMP, and Alpha Vantage for your exact universe, bar resolution, history.
Trading System Blueprinter
Pick your data source, LLM, broker, storage, risk engine, and logger. Get a Mermaid architecture diagram, a starter repo scaffold (ZIP), and a list.
Broker API Comparator
Alpaca vs IBKR vs Tradier vs Schwab vs Robinhood — compare auth, rate limits, order types, market data, MCP, and fees before wiring a line of code.