European stock exchanges have significantly increased market data costs to offset declining trading revenues, creating barriers for market participants and prompting calls for policymakers to ensure fair pricing and support capital market growth. The European Fund and Asset Management Association (Efama), the trade body representing the investment management industry in Europe and therefore the users of the market data, these calls in a press statement on 4 February 2025. However, of the five exchanges contacted by Paperjam, four have contested the conclusions, highlighting data discrepancies.
Research by Market Structure Partners, commissioned by a coalition of industry associations including Efama, found that exchanges’ growing dependence on market data revenues was raising concerns about long-term market growth and innovation. The study examined Europe’s largest exchanges--Deutsche Börse, Euronext, London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG), Nasdaq Nordics and SIX Swiss Exchange Ltd--and found that this reliance on market data revenues had significantly increased the cost of essential market information for issuers, investors and intermediaries.
Niki Beattie, CEO of MSP, stated that the study demonstrated “the ease with which exchanges can rely on market data income to supplement what should otherwise be a natural decline in revenue.” Beattie suggested that this shift had led to market growth becoming a secondary objective and called for European policymakers to challenge the separation of trading and data revenues at trading venues.
Market data versus trading volume
Equity market revenues comprise both trading and market data income. However, MSP’s research found that market data pricing did not align with trading activity. Regulatory disclosures from major European exchanges indicated that as trading revenues declined, market data revenues increased, allowing exchanges to sustain overall equity market revenues.
Between 2020 and 2023, the transacted value on Euronext’s equity markets fell by 17%, yet its total equity market revenue declined by only 0.5%. This was due to market data revenues rising as a proportion of overall revenue from 11% to 19%. Similarly, Deutsche Börse saw a 29% decline in transacted value over the same period, while its equity market revenue fell by just 12%, with market data revenues increasing from 21% to 31%.
Nasdaq Nordics experienced a 26.9% decline in transacted value between 2021 and 2023, but its total equity market revenue fell by only 8.8% as market data revenues rose from 19% to 23%. Meanwhile, LSEG’s European subsidiary, Turquoise, saw a significant reduction in trading turnover between 2020 and 2022. Despite the sale of Borsa Italiana in 2021 contributing to this decline, market data revenue as a percentage of overall equity revenue increased from 10.5% to 27% during this period.
Market data fees and costs
MSP’s research found that there were no direct costs associated with producing market data and that the operational costs of trading platforms, including software, hardware and energy expenses, had remained stable or declined. Furthermore, European exchanges had been using the same trading technology for over a decade, with no evidence of significant investment in their financial statements. The study noted that the costs of disseminating data were covered by third-party providers rather than exchanges themselves.
Exchanges maintained revenues by charging higher prices to fewer participants for more restricted data, according to the study. This was achieved through complex fee structures based on multiple factors, including user type (broker or agent), competitive status, professional versus retail classification, data consumption method (human use versus machine use) and the number of devices accessing the data. Restrictive clauses limited data usage to predefined purposes set by exchanges, creating financial risks for market participants seeking to innovate.
As a result, firms faced vastly different cost structures, with exchanges able to compensate for price reductions for one group of customers by raising prices for others. The study highlighted that automation had contributed to extraordinary price increases, with the cost of machine-readable data in 2024 reaching between 35 and 97 multiples the 2017 price for human-accessible data performing the same functions.
Market competitors
MSP’s research indicated that alternative trading venues and index providers competing with traditional stock exchanges had been particularly affected by market data fee increases. Competing trading platforms saw costs rise by up to 481% between 2017 and 2024, while proprietary index providers competing with exchange-owned indices faced increases of 97% to 170% across three exchanges.
Since the implementation of Mifid I in 2007, European exchanges had collectively generated at least €6.7bn from market data revenues, the trade group report stated. They defended these fees as necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets, but MSP’s research found that competing trading venues had become profitable and processed similar volumes without relying on market data revenues. The study estimated that exchanges could have generated up to €5.83bn in surplus revenue from market data fees since 2008 or earned up to 7.64 times more than competitors for processing similar volumes and market share.
Calls for regulatory action
The research raised concerns over whether exchanges were genuinely serving the equity market community, investing in market development or operating under appropriate regulatory oversight given the evolution of their business models. The study argued that market data’s value should directly reflect trading activity and urged policymakers to regulate data as a by-product of trading rather than a separate revenue stream. If no action were taken, legislative intervention should redefine trading venues’ objectives to ensure that supporting market growth became their primary goal. Improved transparency in exchange data fees would also help clarify the costs imposed by third-party data vendors.
Adam Farkas, CEO of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (Afme), emphasised that “accessible market data is a critical component of healthy and well-functioning capital markets.” He stated that market participants needed reliable data to allocate capital efficiently and that high data costs could undermine much-needed growth in Europe.
Thomas Richter, CEO of the German Investment Funds Association (BVI), highlighted the legal obligation of asset managers to use stock market data, benchmarks and credit ratings from third-party providers. He called for competition authorities to investigate the oligopolistic nature of the market and proposed an EU data vendor act to regulate commercial behaviour. “If we don’t, the already considerable cost pressure in the fund industry will intensify even further--also to the disadvantage of consumers,” Richter said.
Tanguy van de Werve, director general of Efama, argued that addressing high market data costs was crucial for boosting EU capital market competitiveness. “EU capital markets are underperforming their global peers, a trend that has only solidified over the last few years,” he stated. “Tackling high market data costs should be an obvious choice for policymakers looking to reinvigorate European capital markets.”
Stock exchanges disagree
A representative of Nasdaq Nordics told Paperjam, “The claim that exchange data fees are increasing is misleading; any price increases have been below inflation over the same period, and we are fully committed to fair and transparent pricing. We are relentlessly focused on innovation and enhancing the resilience of our world class markets and data services, to ensure they keep up with the accelerating pace and sophistication of trading.”
A spokesperson for SIX Swiss Exchange referred to a , implying “market data pricing remains reasonable, reflecting shifts in data consumption, evolving fee structures, and broader industry costs.” Additionally, “SIX BME annual market data price increase was below the inflation rate in Spain during the reference period 2020-2023, and it is challenging to draw general conclusions based on the revenue structure variations between 2020 (high trading volume year due to the Covid-19 outbreak) and 2023 (low trading volume year). There is a much stronger cyclical dimension in the equity trading income, while market data revenues are generally speaking less dependent on the trading activity.”
A LSEG spokesperson argued that “the data presented in the report contains multiple errors and does not accurately present Turquoise’s trading volumes and market data costs. As just one example, the report says that LSEG has increased its data fees for private investors by over 150% between 2017-2024. Turquoise has waived its data charge for private investors through 2017 - 2024, and although the LSE price list was simplified for private investor fees by removal of bandings, the data charges actually levied upon real customers did not change through this period either. Also, London Stock Exchange announced that data charges for private investors are waived from January 2025. Furthermore, all of LSEG’s equity trading entities are required to make reasonable commercial basis disclosures. The conclusions drawn in the report are therefore inaccurate and we will be contacting MSP to request the necessary extensive corrections throughout.”
An Euronext representative told Paperjam, “An commissioned by FESE and published by Oxera in September 2024, shows exchanges market data pricing remains reasonable, reflecting shifts in data consumption, evolving fee structures and broader industry costs. Euronext is currently studying carefully the accuracy of the data used in the report.”
“Exchanges like DBAG have always been transparent about their market data fees and revenues, as required by Mifir,” said a spokesperson for Deutsche Börse, adding, “Oxera’s analysis shows that stock exchange revenues remained stable from 2018-2023. FESE members' MiFIR market data revenues were €342m in 2023, up from €298m in 2018, an average annual increase of 3%. This modest growth occurred amidst rising costs due to increased regulation, inflation, and competition for talent. Notably, DBAG did not pass on all additional costs for market data production and dissemination.” Furthermore, “For FESE member exchanges, the weighted average proportion was 26% in 2018 and 29% in 2023. Most exchange revenues still come from trade execution.”
While the Luxembourg Stock Exchange is not part of the report, Guy Weymeschkirch, head of markets and surveillance at LuxSE, said, “The report in question is one of several perspectives on market data, including the note published by Oxera in September 2024. While we cannot comment on the practices of other exchanges, the Luxembourg Stock Exchange remains committed to transparency and market integrity. Our price list is readily accessible on our website, and since January 2018, we have been providing real-time and delayed market data free of charge. In full compliance with MIfid II, we publish our Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS14) annually, providing a clear breakdown of our pricing structure. We are confident that our approach ensures fairness and clarity for all market participants.”
The full 157-page report is available .
Updated 11:45 on 6 February 2025 with comment from Luxembourg Stock Exchange.