Payments for order flow are soaring, reaching about US$1.28 billion 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, marketmakers paid US$47.4 cents per hundred contracts for Robinhood flow; almost double Schwab’s US$26.4 cents with Webull at US$40.5 cents, Fidelity US$36.9 cents, and Tastytrade US$27.2 cents.
In May alone, market makers paid retail brokers roughly US$461 million, up about US$158.5 million or 52 % from May 2024. Citadel Securities accounted for US$162 million, more than a third of the monthly total. Robinhood collected US$230.9 million in May, about US$88.9 million more than a year earlier. Although trading cooled in June, payments across the entire second quarter still reached US$1.28 billion, up US$82.3 million (6.9 %) from the first quarter’s US$1.20 billion and up more than 60 % year on year (YoY).
Across the spring quarter, executed volume, shares plus option contracts, jumped from 338.3 billion units in Q1 to 409 billion in Q2. Because volume traded expanded faster than dollars, the average equity payment for order flow (PFOF) fee fell from US$12.5 cents to US$11.3 cents per hundred shares, while the average options fee paid by market makers (excluding exchange-affiliated flows) rose from US$31.4 cents to US$36.6 cents per hundred contracts.
Flow composition also shifted. Payments tied to market orders increased by US$24.1 million to US$236.5 million between Q1 and Q2. Marketable limit order rebates held steady at US$373.2 million, while non-marketable limits added US$26.9 million to reach US$478.1 million. “Other” orders, stops and conditional orders, generated US$191.6 million, up US$32.5 million.
Citadel Securities extended its dominance in payment for order flow volume, raising its quarterly spend from US$394.5 million in Q1 to US$441.0 million in Q2. IMC followed with US$257.6 million, up US$25.2 million. Susquehanna and Wolverine paid slightly less quarter on quarter at US$127.3 million and US$107.7 million respectively, while Jane Street displaced Virtu among the top five by paying US$90.7 million.
On the receiving side, Robinhood’s haul climbed to US$616.6 million, far above Schwab’s US$375.2 million. Options remained the engine of monetisation: market makers spent US$883.0 million on options flow in Q2, versus US$396.4 million on equities.
Robinhood’s receipts of PFOF were double the level of transaction-based revenues reported by the firm during their Q2 earnings presentation. The firm did not reply to requests for comment.
Drilling down by asset class reveals how retail broker “demographics” and market maker specialisation drive value. Robinhood customers received US$487.0 million for options flow but only US$130.0 million for equities, whereas Schwab’s mix was roughly US$195.0 million for options and US$180.0 million for shares. Citadel spent US$312.0 million buying options flow in Q2 compared with US$129.0 million for equities. IMC and Wolverine were pure options houses; Virtu and Hudson River Trading focused almost exclusively on equities; Jane Street paid US$75.5 million for stock flow and virtually nothing for derivatives.
Pricing varies widely by market maker. In options, Citadel paid US$51.3 cents per hundred contracts to Robinhood and US$29.6 cents to Schwab; IMC paid US$49.0 cents to Robinhood and US$27.7 cents to Schwab; Susquehanna paid US$53.0 cents to Robinhood and US$29.1 cents to Schwab; Wolverine paid US$33.2 cents to Robinhood and US$23.1 cents to Schwab. Morgan Stanley (as a market maker) paid US$56.0 cents to Robinhood and had no comparable Schwab flow in Q2.
Across all market makers, other app brokers’ payment for flow were priced in between: Webull averaged US$40.5 cents, Fidelity US$36.9 cents, and Tastytrade US$27.2 cents per hundred contracts. In equities, the gap was smaller but still visible: Citadel paid US$12.9 cents per hundred shares to Robinhood versus US$9.5 cents to Schwab; Virtu paid US$13.0 cents to Robinhood and US$10.3 cents to Schwab; Susquehanna paid US$18.0 cents to Robinhood and US$9.5 cents to Schwab, while Jane Street paid US$8.5 cents to Robinhood and US$12.1 cents to Schwab.
Volumes traded by retailers corroborate the economics. Robinhood customers executed 112.0 billion shares and 16.1 billion option contracts in Q2, up from 74.9 billion shares and 11.6 billion option contracts in Q1. Options remained about 13 % of Robinhood’s order count but generated nearly 80% of its PFOF. Schwab processed 170.3 billion shares and 12.8 billion option contracts in Q2, versus 148.2 billion shares and 12.9 billion option contracts in Q1. Options represented 7 % of Schwab’s orders yet accounted 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 declined to comment.
Market makers’ activity is also as differentiated as ever, with Citadel Securities leading in both equities and options execution. They traded 117.1 billion shares and 11.97 billion option contracts in Q2. IMC and Wolverine remained pure options players, managing 9.85 billion and 11.97 billion contracts, respectively. Virtu and Hudson River Trading routed tens of billions of shares and negligible derivatives. Jane Street increased share volume to 71.5 billion, with almost no options business; Susquehanna sat in between, trading 28.7 billion shares and 3.2 billion option contracts.
