Exness Lot Size Calculator — and the Size That Was Actually Traded — United Arab Emirates
The size this page returns is a plan. Whether it is the size that was traded is a different question, and only the closed line answers it. Three things routinely put another figure there: an order ticket accepts size in fixed steps and settles a plan on the nearest step it accepts, one order can be written in parts, and one intention entered twice becomes two records instead of one. The check is a comparison of two numbers that both already exist — the one that was planned and the one that was written.
An Exness lot size calculator turns your risk into a position size: enter your account balance, how much you are willing to risk per trade and your stop-loss in pips, and it returns the volume in lots. Sizing your position to your risk is the core of trading risk management. Pro mode sizes in your account currency, checks the margin the size needs and sets the stop from the instrument's measured average daily range; switch to Simple for a quick lots-from-risk figure.
—
Calculations use spreads and contract specs measured on a live Exness Standard account (2026-09-18). Figures are indicative — spreads may fluctuate and actual results will vary.
What lot size fits a $1,000 account risking 2%?
Risking 2% of a $1,000 account puts $20 at risk. With a 30-pip stop-loss on EUR/USD, where one pip per lot is worth about $10.00 at measured specs, the size is about 0.07 lots — around 7,000 units, needing about $40.20 of margin at 1:200 leverage.
Figures are indicative, from spreads and contract specs measured on a live Exness Standard account (2026-09-18). Converted to a local currency, the same amounts follow the current exchange rate, which changes through the day.
Frequently asked questions
Why does the lot size depend on the stop-loss?
Does the method change in another deposit currency?
How do I check the size I actually traded?
Why is the size on the line under the figure I planned?
Why are there two lines when one order was placed?
Does entering in two goes change the plan?
Is it worth checking once the position is already closed?
Which size should the result be judged against?
Have an idea to make this calculator better? Share it with the team on Live Help →
Every suggestion is read — feedback helps improve these tools.
The planned figure and the written figure are two numbers
Planning produces a figure with more precision than an order ticket can carry, and the ticket settles it on a size it accepts. From that moment the written size is the authority for everything downstream: the result, the charges and the share of the account that was genuinely exposed are all computed from it, and none of them are computed from the plan.
Both numbers are easy to find. One is on this page, held for as long as the inputs stay on screen; the other is the size field of the closed line, held for as long as the account exists. A plan that is never set against it does not stay a plan — it quietly becomes a belief about what happened.
The check takes one comparison and it is worth making on every entry for a while, because the three causes below are habits of a platform and of a person rather than one-off accidents.
One intention, two tickets
Entering in two goes leaves two records. Each was sized on its own, each carries its own share of the charges, and neither of them on its own is the position that was intended. The account holds the sum; the report holds the parts.
Reading one of the two parts and setting it against a plan built for the whole compares a half with a whole and finds a discrepancy that was never there. The fix is procedural rather than arithmetic: group first, then compare.
The same shape appears when a second entry is added to a running position and the plan is not restated. Nothing in the record is wrong; the plan simply stopped describing the position some time before it closed.
One order, several fills
A single order can also be written in parts. The parts total to the order, and individually they do not match it, so a list that shows two lines where one order was placed is describing how the order was filled rather than how it was placed.
For the purposes of this check the treatment is identical to two tickets: total the size fields of the group, and compare the total. What differs is the lesson — two tickets are a decision that can be made differently next time, while parts of one order are a property of how the order was filled, and the only useful response is to read the total rather than the first line.
What the comparison is actually worth
Repeated over a handful of entries, the comparison produces something a single trade cannot: a statement about your own habits with evidence attached. Either the written size matches the plan routinely, in which case the sizing step can be trusted and attention belongs somewhere else, or it does not, and the record says which of the three causes is responsible.
It is also the cheapest audit available, because both numbers already exist and neither of them has to be recomputed. Everything else about a closed trade invites argument; the size field does not.
Where the written size turns out to be the one that keeps surprising you, the useful next page is the comparison of two closed lines, because a size difference is the second of the four fields checked there.
Checking the size that was actually traded
- Write the planned size down before the order goes in. Without it there is nothing to compare against afterwards, and memory is not evidence.
- Once the position has closed, open the closed deal list and pull every line belonging to that decision.
- Add the size fields of those lines together. The sum, not any single line, is the size that was traded.
- Set the sum against the plan. Equal means the sizing step held end to end; different means one of the three causes applies, and the records say which.
- Name the cause before the next entry: a size settled on an accepted step, one order written in parts, or one intention entered as two tickets.
Both numbers in this comparison already exist. Nothing has to be recalculated, and the answer does not expire.
Reading the size field after the fact
| What the closed lines show | What it usually means | What it changes |
|---|---|---|
| One line, size equal to the plan | The sizing step held end to end | Nothing; the recorded result belongs to the size that was planned |
| One line, size slightly under the plan | The plan carried more precision than the ticket accepts | The share of the account exposed was a little smaller than intended |
| Several lines totalling the plan | One order was written in parts | Each line holds its own share of the charges; only the total is comparable |
| Two lines, each near half the plan | The entry was made as two tickets | Two records to group before any comparison is meaningful |
| Total larger than the plan | A second entry was added and the plan was not restated | The position carried more than the plan described for part of its life |
Read the left column against the closed deal list, not against memory of the entry.