--- title: "ESMA Q&A 1039 — Q&A — Best Execution [Answer Published]" shortTitle: "ESMA Q&A 1039 — Q&A — Best Execution [Answer Published]" answer_id: ESMA_QA_1039 topic: "Best Execution" status: "Answer Published" type: qa instrument_type: qa authority: ESMA binding: false binding_character: non_binding legal_status: in_force regulation: "MiFID II" mifid_level3: true mica_level2: false legal_basis: "MiFID II" date: 16 December 2016 source_link: https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/1039 lifecycle: "Answer Published" text_version: "ESMA Q&A register, 16 December 2016" source_url: "https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/1039" check_status: matched verified: true last_checked: 2026-10-26 checked_against: "the ESMA publication" source: prepared_by: "ESMA" published_by: "ESMA" published_in: "ESMA Q&A tool" evidence: prepared_by: "ESMA Answer" locator: "ESMA Q&A entry ESMA_QA_1039: field 'ESMA Answer', no 'Answer provided by' line" document_type: "qa_answer" legal_nature: "not_legislation" addressees: "not stated in the document" dates: published_on: "2016-12-16" question_submitted_on: "2016-12-16" locators: published_on: "ESMA Q&A Excel export ESMA_QA_1039, column 'Esma responses', date line" question_submitted_on: "ESMA Q&A Excel export ESMA_QA_1039, column 'Date of submission'" lifecycle_label: "Answer Published" --- **Answer by ESMA, published in its Q&A tool · not legislation · published 16 Dec 2016 [Answer Published]** *Answer Published · ESMA Q&A register, 16 December 2016 · Checked against the ESMA publication on 26 Oct 2026 · [Official source](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/1039)* | | | |---|---| | **Full title** | ESMA Q&A 1039 — Q&A — Best Execution \[Answer Published\] | | **Prepared by** | ESMA | | **Published by** | ESMA, in the ESMA Q&A tool | | **Reference** | ESMA_QA_1039 | | **Document type** | Q&A | | **Legal nature** | Not legislation | | **Addressees** | Not stated in the document | | **Dates** | Published 16 December 2016; question submitted 16 December 2016 | | **Legal basis** | MiFID II | | **Related instruments** | None recorded | | **Text on this page** | Word for word — the full text of the ESMA publication | **Best Execution** ### Question Where RTS 27 (Article 5) requires a venue to disclose costs, can this report be aggregated and presented as venue-level information? *** ### Answer \[ESMA35-43-349 MiFIDII Investor protection Best execution Q&A 9\] Article 27(3) of MiFID II requires that execution venues (regulated markets, MTFs, OTFs, SIs, market makers and other liquidity providers) make information on the quality of execution available to the public in relation to price, costs, speed and likelihood of execution for individual financial instruments. Consequently, Article 5 of RTS 27 requires venues to publish for each financial instrument quarterly information on the costs applied by the venue to its members or users. It is worth clarifying that venues are expected to provide information on costs aggregated at the level of the venue and any market segment(s) they operate (e.g. standard, high growth, dark book, lit book etc.). This approach is supported by Recital 4 of RTS 27 which provides that to avoid inappropriate comparison between execution venues and to ensure the relevance of collected data, execution venues should submit separate reports corresponding to segments that operate different order books or that are regulated differently or use different market segment identifiers. In addition, it may be relevant to differentiate cost information in relation to the business model or fee structure of the venue e.g. where venues apply different fees depending on the type of client or member e.g. maker taker fee models. In this way, venues should ensure that cost information is consolidated at the appropriate level so as to facilitate comparability between other execution venues. *** **Source:** [ESMA original document](https://www.esma.europa.eu/publications-data/questions-answers/1039)