Get started

Euro / U.S. Dollar

No trades
See on Supercharts
Overview News
Ideas
Discussions Technicals Seasonals Economic Calendar

EURUSD trade ideas

The EUR & the USD. Events that can affect the move this weekThis week we are monitoring EUR and USD carefully, as we could see some interesting moves, due to some events on the economic calendar. Let's dig in. FX_IDC:EURUSD MARKETSCOM:EURUSD TVC:DXY MARKETSCOM:DOLLARINDEX Let us know what you think in the comments below. Thank you. 75.2% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. The value of investments may fall as well as rise and the investor may not get back the amount initially invested. This content is not intended for nor applicable to residents of the UK. Cryptocurrency CFDs and spread bets are restricted in the UK for all retail clients.
by Marketscom
EURUSD Consolidating now, but soon may reveal a new trend!!!EURUSD is consolidating between the red box shown. Previously, it can be seen that, this whole area between 1.17050 and 1.16630 is very choppy, and not the best area to place any trades. Look at the market structure latest HH. If price pushes above 1.17050, we will continue in an uptrend, and then we will look for BUYS. Now, look at the red trendline drawn. It is interacting with the consolidation zone. We have a very small pullback at the red arrow drawn. It exactly sits at 1.16630. The point is, if price goes below that level, we will know that price is respecting the trendline and would most likely continue moving down. Therefore, we look for SELLS. Obviously, we dont want to get caught in any fakeouts. So we will further look at how the candles are being formed later and what story they tell. Now we wait and watch.
by Nikladon
Fundamental Market Analysis for July 22, 2025 EURUSDThe euro is trading near 1.1700, having retreated from an intraday high of 1.1720 after the release of the final June U.S. CPI figures, which confirmed a slowdown in inflation to 2.7% y/y and 0.1% m/m while keeping the core reading steady at 3.1%. The brief rise in risk appetite quickly gave way to stronger demand for the dollar as the probability of the Fed’s first rate cut in September fell from 65% to 55%. Additional pressure on the euro comes from the yield differential: 10-year U.S. Treasuries hover around 4.45%, while German Bunds yield only 2.30%. The gap of more than 215 bp encourages capital to flow from the eurozone into dollar assets, supporting USD demand. Fundamentally, risks for the euro remain tilted to the downside: after June’s rate cut the ECB said further moves depend on price dynamics, and the eurozone composite PMI dropped to 50.1 – the brink of stagnation. Against the backdrop of weak continental activity and moderate yet persistent U.S. inflation, the pair may test support at 1.1615 in the coming sessions, especially if U.S. durable-goods orders exceed forecasts. Trading recommendation: SELL 1.1700, SL 1.1720, TP 1.1615
Short
by Fresh-Forexcast2004
Bullish Setup Loading: Watching Structure & Confirmation ZonesHello Traders, Price is currently in a counter-trend pullback phase, showing signs of temporary weakness within a larger bullish context. Patience is key as we wait for price to build structure and break the internal Lower High (LH), which would act as an early signal of bullish continuation. The 4-hour internal structure remains strongly bullish, following a clean mitigation of the daily bullish continuation demand zone. A long setup from a 4H Point of Interest (POI), backed by Lower Timeframe (LTF) confirmation, offers a high-probability trade aligned with the higher timeframe trend. Confirmation through structural shifts will reduce risk and increase confidence in directional bias.
Long
by fxtrends28
EUR/USD Holds Firm Near 1.1700 Amid Trade TensionsFundamental analysis The EUR/USD pair remains buoyant near 1.1700 in todays Asian session, extending monday’s gains as the US Dollar weakens sharply amid renewed US-EU trade tensions. The US Dollar Index (DXY) is treading water around 97.88, down from its recent one month high of 99.00, as risk sentiment deteriorates following reports that President Trump is pushing for tariffs of 15%-20%, above the previously discussed 10%. Additionally, his unwillingness to ease the 25% auto levy has triggered a more aggressive EU stance, with Germany joining France in calling for retaliatory measures. On the monetary policy front, markets are focused on the European Central Bank (ECB), which is widely expected to keep rates unchanged on Thursday. However, President Christine Lagarde’s guidance will be crucial for gauging the euro’s direction in the second half of the year. Meanwhile, traders in the US remain confident that the Federal Reserve will leave its benchmark rate at 4.25%–4.50% in next week’s meeting, further limiting upside for the dollar. Technical analysis EUR/USD remains caught within a pivotal range, with directional conviction still lacking as momentum indicators remain subdued. Upside Potential The pair must vault above the 2025 high of 1.1830 (July 1) to open the path toward the June 2018 peak at 1.1852. A sustained break above this dual resistance zone would likely encourage a bullish continuation, targeting fresh multi-year highs. Downside Risk Conversely, a breach of July’s base at 1.1556 would weaken the current structure and potentially trigger a deeper pullback: Initial support emerges at the 55-day moving average near 1.1485. Below that, the May 29 weekly low at 1.1210 offers the next significant floor. A failure to hold these levels could expose the psychologically critical 1.1000 handle, a key long-term support. The forecasts provided herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as guarantees of future performance. This is an example only to enhance a consumer's understanding of the strategy being described above and is not to be taken as Blueberry Markets providing personal advice.
by Blueberry
EUR/USD AccumulationOn the 5-minute timeframe, buying activity initiates, signaling the potential end of the downtrend. The first indication of upward momentum appears following the formation of a range and a subsequent liquidity sweep. Price then retests the prior low with diminished volume but fails to break below it, suggesting that selling pressure is being absorbed by buyers. This behavior reflects accumulation by informed participants positioning for a move higher. As demand begins to outweigh supply, clear signs of strength emerge Entry: 1.15765 Take Profit: 1.16279 Stop Loss: 1.15621
Long
by richard925
EUR/USD Analysis by zForex Research Team - 07.21.2025​EUR/USD Pulls Back Amid Trade Deal Uncertainty EUR/USD edged down to 1.1620 during Monday’s Asian session, after gains in the previous session, as the US Dollar stayed firm and traders remained cautious ahead of the August 1 tariff deadline. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the Trump administration expects to finalize trade deals with major partners in the coming weeks, calling the next two weeks “historic.” He expressed optimism about reaching an agreement with the EU but confirmed that August 1 remains a firm deadline for new tariffs. Resistance levels for EUR/USD are set at 1.1670, followed by 1.1700, and extend up to 1.1750. On the downside, support is found at 1.1580, with additional levels at 1.1540 and 1.1500.
by ChartMage
EUR/USD 21.07.25EUR/USD: Uptrend Continues — Targeting 1.1859** Market Overview: EUR/USD has bounced off the 1.1570–1.1540 support zone, confirming the integrity of the uptrend. The pair remains inside a rising channel and is approaching key resistance on the D1 level. Technical Signals & Formations: — EMA(144) on 8H acts as dynamic support — Key support at 1.1570–1.1540 held strong — Bullish momentum targets the 1.1859 resistance (D1) — Bullish candlestick pattern formed on rebound Key Levels: Support: 1.1570, 1.1540 Resistance: 1.1859 (D1) Scenario: Primary: continuation toward 1.1859 Alternative: if 1.1540 breaks, possible retracement to 1.1450
Long
by DENOLLAFINANCERU
EURUSD - M15 Supply Zone RetestThe current price action shows that the market is expected to first fill the Fair Value Gap (FVG) area, which acts as a price inefficiency zone demanding liquidity clearance. After the FVG is filled, the price is anticipated to retest the Higher Time Frame (HTF) Supply Zone, which serves as a strong resistance area. Following the retest of the supply zone, the prevailing downtrend is likely to resume, pushing the price downwards towards the HTF Demand Zone. This demand zone is identified as a key support level where buying interest is expected to emerge, potentially halting the decline temporarily or initiating a reversal. This trading plan emphasizes waiting patiently for the FVG fill as a prerequisite step before looking for a supply zone retest confirmation to enter short positions targeting the demand zone below, aligning with the overall bearish trend continuation.
Short
by famousone_chn
EURUSD - Bullish Bias with Tactical Short Setup• Pair: EURUSD • Bias: Bullish overall | Tactical short into demand • HTF Overview (4H): • Bullish structure confirmed. • Price took out SSL liquidity — likely draw is internal structure OB below. • Expecting deeper pullback before continuation. • MTF Refinement (30M): • Looking for price to sell off into 4H OB. • Price already mitigated 30M OB and rejected — watching for follow-through. • LTF Confirmation (5M): • Still in analysis mode — waiting on a CHoCH from 5M OB. • Green lines on chart reflect 5M internal structure. • Entry Zone: • Enter short only after 5M shift confirms. • Ride short into 4H OB demand zone. • Targets: • Short-term: 30M lows. • Major: 4H OB for bullish reaction. • Mindset Note: • No rush to enter — analysis leads, execution follows. • Let price deliver confirmation before switching to trader mode. Bless Trading!
Short
by Juicemannn
DXY was looking for More Liquidity to sweepIt appears that the DXY was searching for more liquidity before continuing its decline. There are good buying areas for the EURUSD, as the liquidity swept to the bottom, and the immediate rebound indicates the strength of this area and can be considered a buying zone. This area coincides with the 61 Fibonacci support line, confirming the possibility of an upside move. The GBPUSD was targeting the bottom to trigger a liquidity sweep on the weekly timeframe. This is also an SMT signal, but it is somewhat weak, but it confirms the complete vision of the analysis.
Long
by Mr_Liquidity1
The Ineffectiveness of Day Trading: A Critical Review of EmpiricThe Allure of Quick Profits Day trading has gained considerable popularity as an investment strategy among retail investors, particularly following technological advances in electronic trading platforms and commission-free brokerage services. This analysis examines the available empirical evidence from various markets and time periods to evaluate the economic viability of day trading as an investment strategy. The most comprehensive study on the subject comes from Barber et al. (2011), who analyzed the behavior of over 360,000 day traders in Taiwan. Their results show that over 80 percent of day traders lose money, and less than 1 percent can achieve consistently profitable results. These findings align with similar studies from other markets and confirm the systematic unprofitability of day trading for the vast majority of participants. Day trading represents a systematically unprofitable investment strategy for retail investors, rooted in cognitive biases (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), excessive transaction costs, and market microstructure inefficiencies (O'Hara, 1995). Long-term passive investment strategies demonstrate superior risk-adjusted returns with significantly lower resource requirements. What the Research Shows The research landscape on day trading is clear and consistent across various markets. A systematic review of the most important studies follows established standards of financial market research. The inclusion criteria for relevant studies encompass empirical investigations with substantial sample sizes (more than 1,000 traders), minimum observation periods of 12 months, and quantitative performance measures. The available literature is based on millions of trading accounts from various developed markets. The historical development of day trading shows clear parallels to technological developments in the financial sector. Before deregulation through Electronic Communication Networks by the SEC in 1997, it was impossible for retail investors to trade directly in the market. With the rise of online brokers like E*TRADE and Ameritrade, day trading became accessible to the mass public for the first time. This technical opening coincided with aggressive marketing that promoted free trades, low fees, and success stories of individual traders. Empirical Findings Evidence from various markets shows consistent patterns. Barber et al. (2011) document that 84.3 percent of 360,000 analyzed day traders in Taiwan suffered losses, with a median return of minus 8.7 percent. Similar studies from the United States confirm loss rates exceeding 90 percent of participants. Jordan and Diltz (2003) conclude that even experienced day traders are hardly able to beat the market after costs in the long term. The long-term results are even more sobering: only a fraction of all day traders remain profitable over extended periods, while a significant portion abandons the activity within two years. The transaction cost analysis is based on realistic market conditions. A calculation example illustrates the structural challenges: with an assumed daily trading volume of $50,000 and eight round trips per day, substantial costs arise from commissions (approximately 0.1% per trade), bid-ask spreads (averaging 0.02-0.05%), and market impact (about 0.01% for smaller volumes). Annual Cost Calculation Example: - 252 trading days × 8 trades = 2,016 trades/year - Commission costs: 2,016 × $2.50 = $5,040 - Spread costs: $50,000 × 0.03% × 2,016 = $30,240 - Total costs: approximately $35,000 or 70% of daily trading volume This cost structure means that day traders must achieve gross returns of well over 70 percent annually just to break even, while passive investors bear annual costs of only 0.1 to 0.3 percent (Bogle, 2007). Behavioral Analysis and Cognitive Biases Behavioral research explains why day trading remains attractive despite poor success prospects. Odean (1999) shows that overconfident investors trade excessively and thereby reduce their expected returns. The disposition effect documented by Shefrin and Statman (1985) leads traders to realize gains too early and hold losses too long. Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) Prospect Theory explains systematic biases in decision-making under uncertainty. Loss aversion leads to losses weighing psychologically heavier than equivalent gains, resulting in irrational holding of losing positions. The gambler's fallacy manifests in the erroneous assumption of many day traders that past losses make future gains more likely. Recency bias leads to overweighting recent events. These psychological factors reinforce each other and create a vicious cycle of irrational decisions. Comparative Analysis: Day Trading versus Passive Strategies A comparison with established investment strategies illustrates the systematic disadvantages of day trading. Malkiel (2011) documents long-term returns of diversified portfolios at 6-8 percent real, while Barber and Odean (2000) show that frequent trading systematically reduces returns. Historical data shows that the S&P 500 Index achieved an average annual return of 10.2 percent with 15.8 percent volatility over 30 years (Sharpe ratio: 0.65). Day traders, in contrast, typically exhibit negative Sharpe ratios as losses dominate amid high volatility. The time investment differs dramatically: day trading requires 40-50 hours of weekly attention, while passive investing demands less than one hour per week. Studies also show health burdens from the constant stress of active trading. Market Microstructure and Professional Trading Market structure systematically favors institutional players. High-frequency trading firms possess latency advantages in the microsecond range, while retail traders operate with delays exceeding 100 milliseconds. They utilize co-location services and process data volumes inaccessible to private investors. Market-making operations profit from bid-ask spreads and exchange rebate programs. They operate under different regulatory frameworks and have access to dark pools and proprietary technology. Day trading mathematically represents a zero-sum game that becomes negative after costs. Since the sum of all trading gains and losses equals zero, but transaction costs are positive, the expected return for all participants collectively is necessarily negative. Alternative Investment Strategies Academic literature comprehensively documents the superiority of passive strategies. Bogle (2007) demonstrates through long-term data that low-cost index funds consistently achieve better net returns than active strategies. Passive Strategy Calculation Example: An investment of €10,000 in a low-cost ETF (0.15% TER) with 7% annual returns yields approximately €37,000 after 20 years. To achieve this result, day traders would need to consistently earn over 15% gross returns after costs—a scenario that is empirically nearly impossible. Factor-based investing offers additional improvements: Fama and French (1992) documented excess returns for value and size factors that are systematically and cost-effectively accessible. Limitations of the Evidence The research landscape has certain constraints. Survivorship bias in datasets may underestimate actual losses, as unsuccessful traders disappear from samples more quickly. Additionally, definitions of day trading vary between studies. External validity is influenced by changing market structures. Algorithmic trading and new financial instruments may alter established patterns. Nevertheless, the fundamental problems of high costs and systematic behavioral biases persist. Conclusion The empirical evidence is clear: day trading represents a loss-making activity for the vast majority of participants. The combination of high transaction costs, systematic behavioral biases, and structural market disparities makes consistent profitability nearly impossible. While isolated success stories exist, they represent statistical outliers rather than replicable strategies. The scientific evidence speaks unequivocally in favor of long-term, low-cost, and diversified investment strategies as superior alternatives to day trading. Those who nonetheless engage in day trading should be aware that they are not only competing against the market, but against mathematical and psychological realities that practically preclude a high probability of success. References Barber, Brad M., Yi-Tsung Lee, Yu-Jane Liu, and Terrance Odean. "Do Individual Day Traders Make Money? Evidence from Taiwan." *Review of Financial Studies* 24, no. 8 (2011): 2892-2922. Barber, Brad M., and Terrance Odean. "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors." *Journal of Finance* 55, no. 2 (2000): 773-806. Bogle, John C. *The Little Book of Common Sense Investing*. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007. Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns." *Journal of Finance* 47, no. 2 (1992): 427-465. Jordan, Douglas J., and J. David Diltz. "The Profitability of Day Traders." *Financial Analysts Journal* 59, no. 6 (2003): 85-94. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk." *Econometrica* 47, no. 2 (1979): 263-291. Malkiel, Burton G. *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*. 10th ed. New York: Norton, 2011. Odean, Terrance. "Do Investors Trade Too Much?" *American Economic Review* 89, no. 5 (1999): 1279-1298. O'Hara, Maureen. *Market Microstructure Theory*. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995. Shefrin, Hersh, and Meir Statman. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence." *Journal of Finance* 40, no. 3 (1985): 777-790.
Education
by EdgeTools