Payments for order flow are soaring, reaching about US$953 million in the second quarter of 2025, and the spoils are concentrated among a handful of brokers and market‑makers.
App-based brokers’ option orders are where the money is: in Q2 2025, market makers paid US$56 cents per option contract for Robinhood flow; significantly higher than the US$ 40 cents paid for Schwab’s, with Webull at US$38 cents, Fidelity US$35 cents, and Tastytrade US$41cents.
In May alone, market makers paid retail brokers US$340 million, up about US$115.9 million or 51.6% from May 2024. Citadel Securities accounted for US$122.8 million, more than a third of the monthly total. Robinhood collected US$128.3 million in May, or US$49.2 million more than a year earlier. Although trading cooled in June, payments across the entire second quarter still reached US$953.5 million, up US$61.8 million (6.8 %) from the first quarter’s US$891.7 million and up more than 64 % year on year (YoY).
Across the spring quarter, executed volume, shares plus option contracts (accounted for in shares equivalent by multiplying contracts numbers by their quotity multiplier), jumped from 373.6 billion units in Q1 to 420.1 billion in Q2. With trading volume expanding faster than dollars spent for flows, the average equity payment for order flow (PFOF) fee fell from US$12.4 cents to US$11.5 cents per hundred shares, while the average options fee paid by market makers (excluding exchange-affiliated flows) rose from US$41.7 cents to US$44.2 cents per contracts.
Flow composition also shifted. Payments tied to market orders increased by US$18.7 million to US$208.5 million between Q1 and Q2. Marketable limit order rebates held steady at US$269.5 million, while non-marketable limits added US$20.8 million to reach US$333.2 million. “Other” orders, stops and conditional orders, generated US$142.3 million, up US$20 million.
Citadel Securities extended its dominance in payment for order flow volume, raising its quarterly spend from US$311.2 million in Q1 to US$340.6 million in Q2. IMC followed with US$195.8 million, up US$15.1 million. Susquehanna and Wolverine paid slightly less quarter on quarter at US$102.3 million and US$82.4 million respectively, while Jane Street displaced Virtu among the top five by paying US$76.1 million.
On the receiving side, Robinhood’s haul climbed to US$342.6million, still behind Schwab’s US$375.2 million. Options remained the engine of monetisation: market makers spent US$636.3 million on options flow in Q2, versus US$317.2 million on equities.
Drilling down by instrument type, Robinhood customers generated US$270.5 million in options PFOF but only US$72.0 million from equities, whereas Schwab’s mix was US$194.9 million in options and US$180.3 million in shares. Citadel spent US$232.6 million buying options flow in Q2 compared with US$108.0 million for equities. IMC and Wolverine remained pure‑options houses; Virtu and Hudson River Trading focused exclusively on equities; Jane Street paid US$61.3 million for stock flow and US$15.2 million for derivatives.
Pricing varies widely depending on market maker. In options, Citadel paid around US$60.0 cents per contract to Robinhood and US$41.2 cents to Schwab. IMC paid US$54.4 cents to Robinhood and US$43.4 cents to Schwab. Susquehanna paid US$60.5 cents to Robinhood and US$42.6 cents to Schwab, while Wolverine paid US$42.4 cents to Robinhood and uS$30.1 cents to Schwab. Morgan Stanley (acting as a market maker) paid US$62.4 cents per contract to Robinhood and executed no meaningful Schwab flow in Q2. Across all market makers, other app brokers’ options flows were priced in between: Webull averaged US$37.5 cents, Fidelity US$35.2 cents and Tastytrade US$40.8 cents per contract.
In equities, the gap was smaller but still visible. Citadel paid about US$14.29 cents per 100 shares to Robinhood versus US$9.51 cents to Schwab. Virtu paid US$14.32 cents to Robinhood and US$10.34 cents to Schwab. Susquehanna paid US$19.85 cents to Robinhood and US$9.45 cents to Schwab, while Jane Street paid US$9.45 cents to Robinhood and US$12.06 cents to Schwab.
Volumes traded by retailers corroborate the economics. Robinhood customers executed 56.3 billion shares and 483.21 million contracts in Q2, up from 37.9 billion shares and 479.2 million contracts in Q1. While the number of options traded is less than 1% of the shares traded (or 83% of the shares equivalent traded multiplying each contract by 100), they generated 80% of its PFOF. Schwab processed 170.3 billion shares and 488.0 million contracts in Q2, versus 148.2 billion shares and 478.6 million contracts in Q1. Options in shares equivalent traded represented 28% of the stocks it traded while accounting for just over half its PFOF.
A Schwab spokesperson said the firm’s routing decisions are driven by execution quality consideration rather than PFOF: “At Schwab, we put our clients’ interests first. Best execution for our clients always takes priority when determining where to route orders. Any eligible rebates from a particular market centre are not a consideration in order routing decisions.”
Robinhood did not respond to requests for comment.
Market makers’ activity is also as differentiated as ever, with Citadel Securities leading in both equities and options execution. They traded 99.2 billion shares and 502.4 million option contracts in Q2. IMC and Wolverine remained pure options players; they traded 431.9 million and 239.4 million contracts, respectively. Virtu and Hudson River Trading routed tens of billions of shares and negligible derivatives. Jane Street increased its share volume for the quarter to 52.8 billion and traded 39.0 million option contracts; Susquehanna sat in between, trading 26.6 billion shares and 164.4 million option contracts.
