All 152 firms in the register

Each firm has its own page: the rules quoted from the firm's own documents, the date we read them, and the saved copy.

cfd · 93

FTMO — 10% static drawdown, no consistency rule on funded accounts, and the longest verifiable record in the category — $650M+ paid since 2015 from a named Czech entity.
Alpha Capital Group — The UK regulator publicly warns against it. The FCA added Alpha Capital Group, under its alphacapitalgroup.uk address, to its Warning List on 22 November 2023 and it is still listed — the entry says the firm may be providing or promoting financial services without FCA permission, with no Ombudsman or FSCS recourse. That register is served by JavaScript and we cannot archive it, so the wording here is ours; the list itself is public and searchable by name. Its own terms agree it is not FCA authorised. FTMO, The5ers and City Traders Imperium are not on that list — so this is not simply how the industry works.
Fintokei — Read plan by plan on 4 August across twenty-nine saved copies, and what the reading found is that the number which closes an account is not published. Every rule this firm has is on a sales page: /rules/, /trading-rules/, /drawdown/ and nine more return 404, and the two documents its own footer calls binding are PDF viewers that saved as one sentence — "PDF preview is not available in this browser." Nothing in those twenty-nine copies says whether the maximum loss limit trails the account upward or sits where it started; the words "trailing" and "static" appear on none of them. That is why this row no longer reads STATIC, which it did, uncited, since July. What Fintokei does publish it publishes plainly, and some of it is better than the field: the base of the daily limit on three of its four programmes, that it is "currently not regulated because we do not provide any regulated investment services", and that a funded account is still a demo account.
The Trading Pit — The Liechtenstein registration is real and verifiable — three named entities with published numbers. It falls on a rule added in June 2025: CFDs Prime accounts now require three "minimum profitable days" of 0.5% each, a payout gate that appears only in a help-centre article, never in marketing.
Finotive Funding — All six products carry a static drawdown — no trailing floor exists anywhere in this firm. The terms say so in one sentence that covers every account type. What the terms also carry is a discretionary clause allowing Finotive to "withhold, delay, adjust, reduce, reject, reverse, or reclaim any Reward Payment" on reasonable suspicion — which covers breach, prohibited conduct, and a long tail of internal triggers. The rules page contradicts the terms on Pro leverage (100:1 vs 1:50), and the footer cites a Czech capital-markets act while the company is registered in Dubai.
BrightFunded — Read plan by plan on 2 September from 18 pages on brightfunded.com and 36 in its Intercom help centre: three products that do not share a floor — 1-Step trails 6% on equity in real time and locks at the starting balance at +6%, 2-Step Bright is flat 8% with a 4% daily, 2-Step Classic flat 10% with a 5% daily — and all three publish the daily limit as the higher of balance or equity at rollover. Trustpilot suppressed its rating after removing fake reviews for a guidelines breach, and its own terms confirm no regulated entity stands behind it.
ThinkCapital — The drawdown accusation was wrong and is withdrawn: Lightning trails on balance and then, in its own words, "locks permanently at $100,000 (the starting balance) and stops trailing forever", while Dual Step and Nexus are flatly static. Its entity is real and checkable — TFG (Payments) Limited, UK company 10537331, confirmed against Companies House. What disqualifies it now is Trustpilot, which withholds its rating behind a fabricated-reviews warning.
Hantec Trader — Seven products, and the firm answers one question three different ways: what a withdrawal does to your loss limit. Express, Enhanced, Instant Funding and Instant Lite all publish that on your first withdrawal "your maximum total loss will lock in at your starting balance", against a minimum request of $20. EnhancedX and Endurance publish the opposite in writing — "It does not increase or reset after a payout". Instant24 says nothing either way. On Enhanced the clause contradicts its own article, which calls the 10% floor "static for the lifetime of the account": a $20 cheque moves that floor by the whole 10%. The contracting entity, Hantec Trader Limited (Mauritius, C191400), states it "does not conduct any regulated activities" and "is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)" — on a page headed "Powered by Hantec Markets Mauritius".
Blueberry Funded — The Schedule is the gap. Clause 3.4 of the binding PDF says the Schedule is part of these Terms and may be provided to you separately via the Website — and the Schedule is currently rendered as the home page comparison tables. Every drawdown figure, profit target and price on this row came from the marketing site, not the contract. The firm sells six plans (4 static, 2 trailing-lock) with different daily limits, consistency rules and target ladders; merging any two would publish a rule the reader cannot find. Trading is demonstration only and there is no route to a live market; the PDF says so twice. Trustpilot withholds the rating and serves a fabricated-reviews warning.
FunderPro — Included in our broker-backed sweep and found to have no broker at all — none is named anywhere on its site or terms. FunderPro Ltd is a standard Malta company registration (C 104558), not an MFSA investment-services licence.
Maven Trading — Not a ceiling — an eraser, and the citation is what showed the difference. This row said $10,000 per rolling 30 days was a hard cap; Maven’s own FAQ says "any profits generated over the $10,000 limit will be voided", and that the account "will be reset to the starting balance after receiving the profit split". So a good month above the cap is not carried forward and not left in the account: it stops existing. The limit is per trader, not per account — "if you are trading on multiple accounts, your accounts will be treated as the same account" — and the terms add a discretionary version of the same power, "Maven reserves the right to forfeit a traders virtual profits when deemed necessary."
Instant Funding — News trading and weekend holding are switched off by default and sold back as paid add-ons — a restriction the top-line marketing does not surface. Structure splits a UK payments company from a Saint Lucia entity that provides the actual programme.
Funded Trading Plus — The contract does not contain the rules. Its own section titled "Rules By Program" runs to two sentences and holds no parameter, while three separate clauses send you there for your symbol loss limit, your minimum withdrawal and your daily loss basis. What it does contain is the power to take the money back: "Forfeiture of any and all simulated-profit from within the “FT+ Trader Phase” (simulated live) account." — a discretionary sanction, exercised at the moment you ask to be paid, over a prohibited-strategy list the firm may vary "without notice". Payouts never lower the high-water mark either, so every withdrawal shrinks the drawdown cushion by exactly what you took. Trustpilot separately withholds its rating for fabricated reviews.
Ment Funding — Real static drawdown and generous rules — until you scale. A 35% consistency rule activates only on forex accounts above $1M, invisible to almost every trader who reads the "no consistency rule" marketing. It leaves the disqualified list: we had it under DD_SHIFT, which accuses a firm of worsening the floor once you are funded, and neither its terms nor its site say anything of the kind.
PipFarm — Read plan by plan, PipFarm splits in two. Its four configurable challenges — Consistency or Endurance, one exam or two — run on a static 10% loss limit that behaves the way it is advertised, and its contract is one of the more careful ones in this register. Its Instant account does not. On the Payout Trailing Instant Account "each time you take a payout, your remaining drawdown allowance shrinks by your share of the withdrawal, permanently", and "Profit alone never changes the allowance" — only being paid does. The firm's own worked example on a $100,000 account has spent the entire buffer after two withdrawals, at which point "it locks permanently at the starting balance of $100,000" and the trader is invited to keep trading with no room left at all. That article lives on a second host, help.pipfarm.com, and nothing on pipfarm.com repeats a word of it.
Crypto Fund Trader — Drawdown accusation withdrawn — the trailing applies to two of its products, is "calculated based on balance", and "once the trailing drawdown reaches the initial account balance, it stops moving and remains fixed". Everything else it sells is a fixed percentage. But the payout axis collapses on one sentence in its own terms: "SWISS RLCRATES AG may, under certain circumstances, not pay the paid scholarship despite the trader's achievement, waiving any subsequent claim" Trustpilot separately withholds its rating for fabricated reviews.
Trade The Pool — Read plan by plan, and the drawdown accusation stays withdrawn: this floor does not chase a peak. It sits still until the account is three daily losses up in equity, then jumps once — "the max drawdown for the account will move to the initial balance" — and stops there. What that leaves is the finding. From that moment the profit you may withdraw and the whole of your remaining buffer are the same dollars, and the firm says so with its own numbers: the maximum payout on its worked example is $21,000, "though withdrawing all of it will close the account". Cashing out in full and closing the account are one action here.
Nordic Funder — Traders report large payouts (~$8,000+) rejected while small ones clear normally, and an instrument-diversification requirement that was never disclosed upfront. It absorbed the collapsed firm Tradiac, and ex-Tradiac traders report the transition promises were not kept.
Funding Traders — Read plan-by-plan on 8 September 2026. The operating entity is FT US Inc of Florida, but the agreement is subject to UAE law. High-impact news trading is banned on Instant Funding, and news profits are capped at 30% on funded Pro plans. Additionally, holding times must average above 2 minutes, and any violation of trading rules voids pending payouts.
FTUK — Read plan by plan on 4 August across two hosts, and the first finding retracts this row's own previous verdict: FTUK names three companies and their addresses in the footer of every page — "FTUK is a trading brand operated by FTUK LLC." — so the old charge that no legal entity is named anywhere is withdrawn. What replaces it is narrower and worse. The floor does not tighten between evaluation and funded on any of the five forex products, and the help centre says so in words: "The maximum drawdown for the One Step program including the evaluation phase is 8%." What no comparison table on the site marks is that FTUK changes what the floor MEASURES between its own products, in contiguous sentences of one article: Instant Funding and One Step get "This is a RELATIVE DRAWDOWN based on your BALANCE." and the Two Step gets "If you are trading the 10K account, your account equity must not fall below $9200." — an open position sitting in loss counts against the second and not the first. And none of it is in the contract: "drawdown", "draw down", "daily loss", "loss limit" and "equity" appear zero times in its 60,000 characters, while Section 7 folds the website into the agreement and reserves the right to rewrite it — "These guidelines, which may change from time to time in FTUK's sole discretion, are incorporated in whole into this Agreement."
Quant Tekel — It publishes the number that closes the account twice, four points apart, on the same domain on the same day: the rules table on its prop home page gives QT 2 Step "4% daily drawdown, 10% max drawdown" and the checkout card for that same plan gives "Daily Drawdown 3% Max Drawdown 6%". Neither page acknowledges the other. What no page publishes at all is what any of its floors is measured against — "equity", "initial balance", "starting balance" and "end of day" do not appear once in the twenty pages saved on 4 August — so not one of its five plans has a statable daily loss limit. Its checkout footer then names two different providers of one service four paragraphs apart, "All QTFunded services are provided by Quant Tekel SVG (St. Vincent and the Grenadines), an offshore entity" and "Quant Tekel LLC – 3984 LLC 2025 provides virtual proprietary trading programs", neither with a registration number; the only group company that has one is the brokerage, whose own FAQ says "quanttekel.com does not offer prop trading evaluations".
VisionTrade — Closed. Both of its own domains answer 404. Listed so anyone who finds an old review knows it is gone. While it ran, its futures page and its forex page gave opposite consequences for the same named rule: on futures a day over the 30% limit was struck out of withdrawable profit, on forex the same rule merely diluted and continued.
Super Funded — Half right, and the half that survives is the plan rather than the firm. Two Phase is static and Super Funded says so in writing: "A static drawdown applies, which means the limit does not adjust as your account grows." One Phase is not, and the firm's own worked example puts the floor above the balance the account opened with and kills there — "This means if your equity or balance drops below $10,500, the challenge will be breached—even though you're still above the original $10,000 balance." Read plan by plan on 4 August, no page in eleven documents says where that climb stops.
OANDA Prop Trader — Discontinued. OANDA announced on 2 March 2026 that the programme was transitioning into FTMO Group, and the dashboard, login and support closed permanently on 30 April 2026. Its domain now redirects to ftmo.com.
Axi Select — Charges no fees at all, which is genuinely rare and means it cannot profit from your failure. It falls on two rules found in the detail: withdrawing mid-month forfeits all allocation-account profit earned that month, and progression is gated by an "Edge Score" whose consistency component is never published.
Goat Funded Trader — Trustpilot has suppressed its rating for a guidelines breach and removed fake reviews — yet its homepage still advertises "4.8 stars" from a source it does not name. Its own FAQ caps allocation at $400,000 while the homepage promises $2M scaling.
Hola Prime — Read plan by plan on 4 August, and the floor turns out to be the clean part: 3% daily and "Maximum Loss Limit 6% of initial account balance", which the firm itself calls "a fixed floor". That sentence is printed twice on the same page, once in the challenge panel and once in the funded one, word for word — nothing trails, and nothing tightens when you pass. What arrives after passing is an extra rule rather than a worse floor: a 2% cap per trade idea that appears only in the funded panel, with a stop compulsory "within 3 minutes of opening a position" and termination on breach. The two accusations this row has always carried survive the closer reading. The scaling page still offers "up to $4 million to trade" while the binding rules table caps combined forex-and-futures allocation at $800K, five times smaller. And the rules page still closes on "Follow the Rules. Get Guaranteed Payouts." over terms reserving "denial or reversal of payouts" at the company's discretion. A third joins them: the advertised "up to 95%" is one payout cycle of three, and the other two pay 80%.
AquaFunded — Trustpilot rating suppressed for a guidelines breach, listed under a different name than it trades as. Fourteen CFD products sit under a contract that carries none of their numbers, and the rulebook is split between a marketing rules page and a help centre that disagree: the rules page prints a 4% daily limit and a fixed 8% maximum loss while the 1 Step articles print 3% daily and a 6% trailing floor, and the consistency rule carries three different values on the same domain the same day. Copy trading is allowed on one page and prohibited on another, and the two cheapest instant models expire after 30 days with a $100 lifetime cap. Its "Wave Stop" cuts your split to 50% on a first breach and terminates on a second.
Blue Guardian — Six CFD plans sold under a contract that carries none of their numbers: it makes the help centre binding by reference — "you are agreeing to abide by all rules identified within the knowledge center" — and every drawdown figure lives there instead. On funded accounts, profits made around a news release "will be subject to removal, without any account violation", and the same clause reaches any trade the firm judges "significantly influenced by news events" — a standard with no threshold published anywhere. Its Guardian Shield then halves the advertised split, permanently, on a single 2% floating loss that does not even breach the account, and appears on no sales page. The futures half of this house runs a different and better rulebook; it is listed separately, as Blue Guardian Futures.
SabioTrade — One exam, one floor, and one sentence that moves it: "Once you request a withdrawal, your maximum trailing drawdown will be set at your starting balance". Until that request the floor sits 6% of the initial balance below the highest closed balance, so a trader 2% up is holding a buffer the first withdrawal takes away — and the published minimum request is $1 by crypto wallet. The contract fires the same rule on the payment rather than the request, and neither document ever says where the trailing stops.
Audacity Capital — The sales pages and the contract describe two different products, and the contract is the quieter one. The shop sells the Ability Challenge at 7.5%/15% then 5%/10%, Ability One at 3%/6% and FTP on a 5% trailing daily limit over a 10% floor; the Funded section of the terms names none of those numbers, bars the major news events with all exposure cleared 30 minutes before, and lets the firm pull any trader at any time without explanation. The homepage banner reads No Consistency Rule anymore while the General Terms carry a Consistency Clause that fails the Ability Challenge, and the refund promised at the checkout is contradicted by a clause that makes every payment final. The company on the contract is AudaCity Global LTD, licensed in the Union of Comoros, under a site whose About page calls itself London-born.
Moneta Funded — Disqualifier withdrawn. Three of its plans are static outright and the two trailing ones stop: the trailing halts once the maximum loss level reaches the original starting balance, and from there the level is fixed and never climbs again. Its worked example makes it concrete — at $115,000 the level would have been $107,000, but the drawdown cannot exceed the starting balance, so it stays at $100,000. Both readings are ours; the page they came from is not one we have been able to save.
Lark Funding — Two of its three products could be read plan by plan, and they do not share a floor. The 1-Step is candid and static — "On our 1-stage evaluation, it is a 7% static drawdown." — with no clock, no minimum days and a monthly base once funded. The Instant runs an 8% floor that trails on live equity and, by the firm's own sentence, locks at the starting balance "when you request your first payout", which for a trader not yet 8% up moves the floor against them. Every figure that can close an account lives in an Intercom help centre on another host: the contract carries none of them and makes "absolutely no promise, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, as to any promise to future employment as a trader, monetary payments". Read on 4 August from seventeen saved pages.
The5ers — We reported that its entire help centre returned 404 and that its rules could not be read before buying. That was our error: we tested the wrong addresses. The knowledge base is live at the5ers.com/faqs with 414 published articles, and read properly, most of its plans run a genuinely static drawdown that is identical in evaluation and funded. What the readable rulebook reveals is worse than what we accused it of. Among the grounds for termination: 'You make any defamatory, disparaging, or harmful statements about the Company, its employees, or the Services on any public platform, including but not limited to social media networks, public groups, forums, or review sites.'
FundedNext — Its own page says "News trading is allowed, with no restrictions on when or how you trade", then sets out the restriction: on funded accounts and on Stellar Instant, profit made in the five minutes around high-impact news is credited at 40% while a loss in that same window counts at 100%. The challenge phases are exempt. An asymmetric penalty is a restriction.
FundingPips — Section 8.e of its own terms binds every customer to "the current trading rules of FundingPips which are available at https://www.fundingpips.com/trading-rules", and 8.f has the account "terminated and canceled without any refund of the fees paid" for breaching it. That address returns 404 — to a plain request, and to a real browser, twice, in the same minute its home page returned twenty thousand characters to that same browser.
E8 Markets — E8 One is one of the few plans in this study that clears every bar: the loss level trails to the starting balance, freezes there, does not change when funded, and carries no clause moving it after a payout. What keeps the firm out of the top tier is that its other lines do the opposite — E8 Pro deletes anything earned above 2% in a day and raises the loss level after the first payout, deleting the buffer.
FXIFY — Asking to be paid raises the floor. FXIFY locks the Max Drawdown at your starting balance when you request a withdrawal — published for the 1- and 2-Phase Standard accounts, and again for Instant Funding LITE, where the firm’s own worked example ends with the account breaching on the next trade. The binding contract carries no loss limit, target or payout figure at all: clause 6.2 delegates every parameter to marketing pages the same contract lets it change.
MyFundedFX / Seacrest — Closed. It rebranded to Seacrest Markets in February 2025 and left the prop space entirely around 7–11 February 2026. Its site now shows only a closure notice — no date, no wind-down plan.
City Traders Imperium — Four programmes, and only one of them runs the floor the brand is built on. The 2-Step, Instant Funding and Direct Funding all publish a static limit; the 1-Step — the cheapest way in — is a 5% drawdown pinned to the highest balance the account has ever closed at, and nothing CTI publishes says where that trail stops. What is good here is not small: every programme measures drawdown on balance rather than on floating equity, two product pages put "No Consistency Rules" in writing, both founders are named with photographs, and the firm has been trading since 2018. What costs you is reading only what you are sold — five of its hardest rules exist nowhere but a blog post signed by a co-founder in December 2025, starting with "You must set a stop-loss within 60 seconds of opening any position."
Smart Prop Trader — Closed. Operations ceased 29 December 2024 and its domain now redirects to an unrelated broker with no explanation. Listed so that anyone who finds an old review of it knows the firm no longer exists.
TX3 Funding Forex — Five products sold from one shop, and one help-centre table on a second host carries nearly every rule the firm publishes about any of them — for three of the five. The 1 Phase floor is "6% trailing, locks after 6% growth", which fixes when it stops and never where; the Flex and Pro floors are bare percentages in the same row, one column across from the word the firm used when it meant a floor that moves. Neither Instant product has a single readable rule in the eighteen pages saved. And no page anywhere says whether any of these limits is the one you trade under once the account is funded — the table marks the stage on three of its seventeen rows and on neither drawdown row.
Eightcap Challenges — Read plan by plan on 4 August, and the finding is an absence: across twelve saved pages this firm publishes no loss limit, no profit target, no minimum trading days, no payout schedule and no challenge contract. The word drawdown appears zero times in all twelve. The single block it heads Condiciones carries the account range, the entry fee, a split ceiling, the duration, an instrument count, two paid add-ons and a platform list — eight rows, and not one of them is a limit. The legal index does not fill the gap: its own opening line scopes every document there to opening "una cuenta de trading real", and none of its four jurisdictions publishes a challenge rulebook. Four legal entities are named on these pages, three of them with a regulator and a licence number, and which one sells you the challenge is never said.
DNA Funded — Four of its five products run a floor that never moves and never tightens between the exam and the funded account — "For 1 phase, 2 phase and rapid challenge, your lifetime drawdown is static." — and the contract prints the same percentage in both of its columns. The fifth is what the code is for: Instant Funding trails on the highest equity the account ever touched, and the firm's own worked example eliminates a $10,000 account at $10,750, "even though you are still above the initial $10,000". No document names a point where that climb stops. What costs the other four is not the floor but the profit cap: on each of the first three payouts, everything above 5% of the opening balance is deleted rather than banked when the account is reset.
Dominion Funding — Every account is simulated, and the binding terms say so while the site keeps a broker link and names no executing broker in any contract. The marketing promises no consistency rule; Appendix A imposes a 60% concentration review that can withhold a payout, and the advertised 48-hour payout is measured in business hours in the contract. The entity named in the terms, a FZCO under Dubai law, is not the company whose Saint Lucia registration number sits in the footer.
ATFunded — Closed. ATFunded paused operations and its site has published nothing since but the shutdown notice: no challenges, no rules page, no terms. The notice promises active accounts a full refund and eligible funded traders their payouts, and says MT5 was set to close only. The live/dead question reviewers used to argue about is answered by the firm itself.
Atmos Funded — Read again on 12 September 2026, and its help centre was reachable this time: the trailing floor, the lock at the initial balance and the static 2-Step floors are all its own published sentences now, on a host the site calls "the official source for all program rules". What replaces the withdrawn drawdown objection is a two-company question and a document that does not cover two of its six products. The agreement you sign is with AtmosFunded Ltd of Cyprus; the footer says the trading is done by Atmos Global Ltd of the Comoros, a company that sign you never see. And the binding policy answers the drawdown, daily-loss and consistency questions for the 1-stage, 2-stage and instant columns only — there is no Plus column, and where the table does answer it disagrees with the product page.
FX2 Funding — Every account is simulated, and the firm says so plainly in the FAQ while its home page sells the Instant product as a way to "access real capital from day one". There is no binding document to read at all: the pages titled Terms, Trading Rules, Evaluation Process, Scaling Plan and KYC/AML each answer 200 and contain only navigation and the shared disclaimer, and the refund policy is the WooCommerce sample page about returning perishable goods. The entity that sells the assessment and signs you at the funded stage is Prop Account LTD, named in the footer disclaimer, while the About page describes a United States LLC and the Saint Lucia registry number belongs to a third name.
Bullwaves Prime — Both products run on one floor, and its own definition is what convicts it: the total drawdown is anchored to the initial balance "or highest equity achieved, whichever is greater" — a comparator that takes the larger term for ever, with no stopping clause anywhere. Every phrase a firm uses when its floor does stop — "stops trailing", "no longer trail", "ceases to trail", "freeze", "locks at", "remains fixed" — is absent from all eleven saved documents, and the shop table you buy from never prints the word "trailing" at all.
IC Funded — Read across three programmes. The 2-Step Professional drawdown loosens when funded — 8% static in Step 1, 10% static in Step 2 and when funded — the inverse of the usual tightening trap, with no consistency rule. The 1-Step Accelerated carries a 6% static floor and a 45% soft consistency ceiling in evaluation. Instant Funded provides immediate capital with a 5% EOD trailing floor that locks at the initial balance and a 20% consistency rule. It falls on corporate backing: marketed under heavy IC Markets branding ("Backed by IC"), but contracted under IC Funded Evaluations Ltd (Saint Lucia), explicitly disclaiming broker status and operating demo-only accounts.
Bespoke Funding — Likely defunct — bespokefunding.com now redirects to a GoDaddy “domain for sale” parking page. A claimed ThinkMarkets broker partnership was directly disputed by a reviewer who stated the firm is “NOT regulated by ANY financial agency”, and no legal entity name was ever findable to resolve it.
Alphachain Traders — In liquidation. Companies House records ALPHACHAIN TRADERS LTD (12824777) with company status “Liquidation”, accounts overdue since 31 May 2024 and the confirmation statement overdue as well. Its site is gone: alphachain.co.uk now serves a parking page reading “This domain may be for sale.”
FundedElite — Seven products sold under one contract that carries no target, no floor, no payout rule, no price and no leverage figure: clause 6.3 delegates every binding number to a help centre the contract never names. The two free-retry products and the two Lite products use a static floor; INSTANT, the live stage of FLASH ACTIVATION and The Catalyst use a trailing floor with no freeze point, so a winning week raises the bar for good. The firm names itself Quantum SRL in the contract and Quantum LTD in its own FAQ, and sells The Catalyst as a real funded account with no demo while the terms say all trading is simulated and no real capital is ever handled.
FundYourFX — A Hong Kong company that names itself, its registration number and its street address, publishes one of the most detailed rule annexes in this register — and, between 4 August and 5 September 2026, rewrote it in the buyer’s favour. The charge this row used to lead with is gone: Schedule 1 was headed "Trailing Drawdown Model" and is now headed "Static Drawdown Model", the floor is fixed from the starting balance, and clause 3.1 publishes the daily and maximum drawdown of every programme instead of pointing at a shop page the firm may rewrite without notice. Three gaps survive and all three cost money: 1-Step and 2-Step advertise an 80% split against a contract whose structure is "starting at 50% and going up to 95%"; a "100% Refundable" badge sits over a policy that returns the fee only after three payouts totalling 6%; and the daily drawdown still has no published clock — a percentage with no reset hour and no reference balance. Two things also moved against the trader: the minimum trade life went from 45 seconds to 60, and the 1-Step withdrew its written promise of no minimum trading days.
For Traders — Twelve plans across three asset classes share a contract that names one company and every page that names another. The terms open with BLN Tech Club DMCC of Dubai as the Platform; the copyright line under every page claims the brand for FT Trading Ltd of Saint Lucia. Neither is regulated, the contract calls every payout "discretionary, not guaranteed", and a chargeback — for any reason — permanently bans the trader across every account.
Ascetic Capital — Closed after roughly one week of operation, citing low sales. Listed so anyone who finds an old reference knows it is gone.
Funded Engineer — Closed July 2024 and filed for bankruptcy after its own technology provider exposed systematic fraud — fabricated trader accounts and wash trading.
Funded Friends — Closed September 2024 and was absorbed by TradingFunds. Listed for anyone following an old recommendation.
Funds For Traders — Closed in 2024 when Eightcap withdrew broker services across the industry and it lost MT4/MT5 access — one of several firms that collapsed on the same supply-side event.
Fidelcrest — Read plan by plan on 4 August, and the floor is the finding. The maximum loss is measured from a peak the account has already touched — "Maximum Loss is the difference between your highest recorded balance and your current equity" — and no page in eleven saved copies says where that measurement stops rising: "stops moving", "remains fixed", "freeze", "frozen" and "locked" occur zero times in any of them. The contract does not describe that mechanism at all. Its clause 6.2.3 defines the same limit on trades opened and closed as "in total the percentage of the initial capital", which is a fixed floor bought at the door — two documents, two rules, one account. And the phase where the firm first pays a commission is the phase where the room halves: "Maximum loss: 10% | 20%" in the Challenge and "Maximum loss: 5% | 10%" in the Verification. The funded stage has no published limits at all: clause 7 hands it to an unnamed third-party company, and the FAQ points its rules at a Professional Trader Agreement that appears on no page — "as long as you don't violate any limits or rules detailed in your Professional Trader Agreement". The list of news events that fail an account is kept inside the Trader Area, behind the login, after payment.
Glow Node — Gone, and the domain is for sale. glownode.com now lands on a domain marketplace listing it as premium inventory. The cause we recorded — losing Eightcap MT4/MT5 access in the 2024 supply-side collapse that took several firms at once — is second-hand and stays labelled as such; that the firm is gone is not.
Indigo Trader Funding — Closed in 2024 amid payout disputes and a saturated market. Listed for anyone who finds an old review.
Karma Prop Traders — Absorbed. Its own page says purchases and trading are paused and that every active account moved to Sway Funded on 24 August, with pending payouts to be collected there — the same acquirer that took MyFlashFunding. Listed so an old reference is not mistaken for a going concern.
FundedFirm — Exposed February 2026 for publishing fabricated payout figures — a $95M claim quietly changed to $9.5M after an earlier exposé — on a site that was a near pixel-for-pixel clone of FundedNext.
FundedX — Flagged as a scam by an independent tracker in December 2025, with reports of non-existent customer support and frozen trader accounts.
iFunds — Plainly static from the initial balance, and there is no evaluation stage for a second rule to hide in — which removes at a stroke the two mechanisms that disqualify most of this register. We had it filed as mixed; that was our imprecision, not theirs.
BestProp4U — Named an entity after all. This register disqualified it for naming none, and its own page says it is an affiliate of Prop Account LLC — the company that actually sells the assessment. Weak disclosure, and not the charge: no country and no registration number is a real complaint about how hard this firm is to hold to account, but the code says nobody is named, and somebody is.
Global Forex Funds — The NO_ENTITY charge comes off — not because the firm answered it, but because we never opened the page that would: an "Imprint" link sits in the footer of every page it serves, and no copy of it exists on disk. What is provable is narrower and still serious: the contract carries no figure of any kind, routing the price, the pass criteria and the payout criteria to a "Schedule of Assessment Programs & Fees" it does not publish, and clause 3.4 makes that invisible document prevail over the terms you can read.
Lux Trading Firm — It sells one drawdown and publishes two, side by side, today. The menu offers New Trading Rules and Old Trading Rules and never says which one binds; only clause 9.4 of the contract does. Accounts activated before 22 September 2025 keep a 6% RELATIVE floor that climbs with the balance and a 75% split; everything sold since gets "All accounts use a 6% static drawdown" and 80%. That static floor is genuine and identical in the exam and after funding. What fails is everything around it: the About page says "We are regulated by TPA" above a footer saying "we are not required to be authorized by the regulatory authority", the shop promises it will "never trade against you" while clause 15.9 reserves the right to "act as the counterparty to your trades", and the rulebook that says "There are no fixed payout cycles" sits over a contract that still says "Calculations of results for stage 3 and up are done the first weekend of a month".
RebelsFunding — Read plan by plan, the floor is not the problem: every evaluation limit is anchored to the opening balance — 10% total across Copper, Bronze and Silver, 6% on the two plans with no daily stop — and the word trailing appears on none of the twelve pages saved. What is missing is the other half. No drawdown figure exists anywhere for the account that actually pays, because the contract hands "rules, eligibility criteria, trading restrictions, risk parameters and reward or commission conditions" to a separate RCF contract signed later with a second company, FRCSM, s.r.o., whose registration number the site never prints. And the shop tells you to "complete the evaluation to qualify for a funded account" while clause 1.9.5 says passing "does not create an automatic, guaranteed or unconditional entitlement to an RCF Account, RCF contract, payout" — you "may only be recommended as a candidate for further review".
OneFunded — Contracts with Brynex Tech Limited (UK, 15918986) under English law and says plainly it is not FCA-regulated — but the footer also hands MT5 clients to OneFunded Capital Ltd (Saint Lucia), whose terms are not published, so which entity you can hold is left open. The parameter tables are real and well laid out; the news rule is not what the help centre claims, and the funded consistency cap is published as both 30% and 50%.
Wall Street Funded — Its funded-account news rule is a vague discretionary clause — “profit is adjusted based on news” — with no mechanism specified, which reads as a clawback-adjacent power rather than a rule you can plan around. Entity is WSFmarkets Ltd, Saint Lucia (2025-00117).
MVFunded — Sells itself as “powered by MarketsVox a fully licensed and regulated CFD Broker” while its own footer states MV Funded “is not regulated by any regulatory body” and is “entirely separate” from that broker — and the firm’s checkout host calls the same broker “our licensed and regulated sister company”. The home page pays out from “live trading” while clause 1.5 of the contract says the trading “is not real”. Two products, 2-step and 1-step, and the help centre the contract delegates its trading rules to answers HTTP 404.
Pipcy — Bans position sizes the firm calls "noticeably smaller or larger than those of the Customer's other trades" with no numeric threshold — enforcement sits with Pipcy. The entity you contract with depends on your country: "Users residing in the United Arab Emirates will contract with Rogano Limited. Users residing in other jurisdictions will contract with Conquest Services Limited". No regulator is named: the FAQ states "Pipcy is not regulated by authorities such as the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC."
XLTrade — The entity is Chimara Ltd, whose registered office is “Hamchako, Mutsamdu, The Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros”, and the only supervision it claims is an “international broker, deposit, and investment license” numbered L15898/CL — no financial regulator is named on any page we could read. Every floor it sells is static. What the marketing and the contract cannot keep straight is how much freedom you really get: the home page promises “No Limits. No Restrictions.” over evaluation conditions requiring that “the contribution to the profits of a single position must not be more than 25%”, and the card under every Instant account refunds the setup fee “in the event of success” while the binding Instant conditions make the refund wait “three consecutive months”. Funded accounts are described as “live accounts (A-book model)” and no broker is named anywhere.
TopOneTrader — A funded 1-Step Flash account may not keep more than 3% profit in a trading day: past that the account is paused and, in the firm’s own words, the excess "is considered invalid and will be voided" — its own example deletes $250 a trader had already closed, and the article says plainly it is not even a breach. Ask for a payout on the same product and the trailing floor locks at your starting balance at once, before the account has earned the 7% gain that would have locked it anyway; the minimum request is 2% of the starting balance, so the smallest legal payout triggers it. Instant Funding publishes the same lock. Both rules are funded-stage only, and neither is on the card you buy from. The company IS named — Top One Trader, LLC, registered office in Anjouan, Union of Comoros — but the funded account is handed to a third name, "Top One Funding", under a separate agreement the firm does not publish.
Velotrade — Leans on “founded 2016, $2.5B+ processed” — but that record belongs to Velotrade’s original invoice-finance business, a different company and line of work; the prop product’s real launch date is not disclosed. Entity is Velotrade Re Limited, Hong Kong, with no financial regulator named.
WeGetFunded — Read plan by plan on 4 August, in French, and the floor is the good news: it does not get worse when the money arrives, and asking for money does not move it. Challenge 1 ÉTAPE runs 4% End-of-Day at both stages and stops climbing at the opening balance — "Dans le cadre du compte financé 1 Step, le drawdown est suiveur en End of Day (EOD) jusqu'à ce qu'il soit entièrement couvert, puis il devient fixe au solde initial." Challenge 2 ÉTAPES runs a flat 10% that never trails at all, and both programmes answer the withdrawal question the same way: "Après un retrait, le drawdown reste fixé au solde initial et ne se recalcule pas." What the binding document never says is what share of the profit those two funded accounts pay. It writes 70/30 for Instant Funded and 80/20 for the Live programme, and for the two challenges it writes nothing, while the homepage sells up to 100%.
The Funded Trader — Read plan by plan, and what survives the reading is mostly the shape of what is missing. The binding Terms of Use — dated "Last updated: January 2025." and read whole — fix no loss limit, no profit target and no payout figure; they hand all of it to a FAQ "as amended from time to time and which are incorporated by reference", and that FAQ lives on a help host whose eight articles all answered with a bot check. The one payout condition the firm does publish is its own and it is discretionary: Funded Traders "are remunerated based on virtual profits they generate on the platform, provided their trading data proves to be useful." Its "Funding Process" page, linked from the menu and the footer of every page, returns HTTP 200 with the words "This page could not be found."
SurgeTrader — Closed May 2024 amid licensing disputes with MetaQuotes and Match-Trader. Listed so anyone who finds an old review knows it is gone.
OspreyFX — Announced its shutdown in June 2025, ceasing operations and terminating its technology providers; the trader portal is now offline. A St Vincent and the Grenadines entity.
Vantage Elite Trader — The prop program of the broker Vantage Markets — launched August 2024 and shut down 30 November 2024, roughly three months later, with the brand reverting to brokerage-only.
True Forex Funds — Closed permanently, and it says why: financial insolvency, in its own notice, still up. We had recorded the cause as MetaQuotes revoking its licence on 13 May 2024, with roughly $1.2M reportedly left unpaid to traders — both second-hand, and the second one is the part a reader would most want sourced. The firm’s own words replace the first and stand beside the second.
Traders With Edge — Marked closed by multiple review sites with an explicit “do not send funds” warning. Listed so an old reference is not mistaken for a live firm.
MyFlashFunding — Ran into financial difficulty and was acquired by Sway Funded in 2024 after payout delays and data-feed problems; it no longer operates independently.
Monevis Funding — Publishes no terms and no contract — every legal address answers 404 — and its marketing and its only rules page disagree about the exam itself: the site describes a two-phase challenge (“Hit the 10% profit target in Phase 1” then “Reach the 5% profit target in Phase 2”) while the rules page sells a one-phase 10% product and a three-phase 4% product. The sole company named is the footer's “Monevis Brokers Ltd.”, with no jurisdiction, registration or regulator, and it states it only provides “services of simulated trading”.
Limitless Funding — A Zagreb, Croatia entity with a thin track record — 21 Trustpilot reviews — and no regulation disclosed. Too little history to judge. Its domain is no longer the firm: on 14 September 2026 limitlessfunding.io and its www both forwarded every visitor to an ad-click network, checked from two different countries. There are no rules left on it to read.
The Forex Funder — The rules a trader can read before paying live only in its help centre: a 1-Step (10%) and a 2-Step (8% then 5%) evaluation, with a floor the firm describes two opposite ways — trailing the highest equity point in the article about drawdowns, fixed to the account initial value in the overview — and never says it freezes. Its marketing site has served Cloudflare Error 1000 for over a year, so no price, no product catalogue and no contract exist on any readable host.
Traddoo — Its own site returns an SSL certificate mismatch — the certificate does not match traddoo.com — making it impossible to safely verify any of its terms. A technical red flag in itself.
Lionheart Funding Program — Owned by Australian PropTradeTech, with no independent regulation disclosed and an up-to-95% split claim. Nothing verifiable stands behind the headline.
Darwinex Zero — Not a prop firm, and it says so itself. It is a paid subscription to a virtual track-record simulator that auditions you for real investor capital, paying 15% on the allocated slice only — there is no funded account and no near-term payout, so it does not fit this comparison. It has the best regulatory pedigree here, but honestly labelled: a genuinely FCA-authorised sister firm, while the entity you actually contract with is an unauthorised introducer and Zero’s own FAQ states its service “is not subject to financial regulation.”
RaiseMyFunds — The pitch was that its regulated broker and the prop firm are the same company — Raise Global SA, FSCA licence 50506. But its own Terms, clause 7, say that regulated entity “is in no way involved” with the funded-trader agreement: once you pass, you are handed to an undisclosed third-party company. The licence covers the demo evaluation only.
The Concept Trading — The strongest regulatory story of any near-miss here: the same entity at every stage — The Concept AU/NZ Pty Ltd, a Corporate Authorised Representative under a real ASIC licence (AFSL 478987, held by Vested Equities), with no third-party handoff — plus a static drawdown that does not worsen when funded, and EAs and HFT allowed without restriction. It falls on a forfeiture clause: you must lodge an invoice within 30 days of reaching a scaling target or forfeit that profit share.

futures · 50

Alpha Futures — One drawdown rule for all four products and both stages, and it is the good kind: it trails the daily close rather than live equity, and "Once the MLL reaches the initial starting balance, it won't continue to trail" — with a payout leaving it exactly where it is. What the firm cannot keep straight is its own paperwork. Two contracts are accepted at the same checkout: one gives the company registration number 15655643, the other 13719951, and where the Terms and the home page pay 90% from the first request, the General Services Agreement says "First two virtual payouts on the account the User receives a 70% Performance Fee".
TradeDay — Nine products sold from one price table, and on three of them the floor changes clock after you have paid for the version that does not: the evaluation runs End-of-Day and "All Quick Pay Funded Sim accounts will have an intraday drawdown , regardless of the drawdown had on the evaluation." The card is labelled (Intraday Funded Drawdown), so it is disclosed rather than buried — but that route costs $79 against $59 at the $50K and the thing being bought expires at funding. The second mechanism is quieter and costs more: the trailing limit runs on gross profit, and "Gross profits are current profits plus payouts.", so "So the TMD will continue to trail, even if users take payouts." Their own $50K example walks the floor from $48,000 to $48,800 across two withdrawals that leave the balance back at about $50,000 — the cheque is paid out of the headroom. It does stop: the limit trails "until they reach the starting account balance". Fast Pass is End-of-Day at both stages and does neither of these things.
Topstep — The longest record in futures by a decade and the only firm here that publishes its own failure rate — 16.8% of Trading Combines completed in 2025. Its rules page names Topstep Brokerage LLC, an affiliate of Topstep LLC registered with the CFTC as an introducing broker and a member of the NFA, ID 0567079. An introducing broker does not hold customer funds or clear trades, and the firm that does is not named on that page.
BluSky Trading — Disqualified for a forfeiture clause, not for its drawdown. Miss the seven-day window to complete brokerage onboarding and "all earned profit balances intended for the Live Brokerage transition will be forfeited" — the source account is closed and the money goes with it. On the floor itself we had recorded a switch from static to trailing on the Sim Funded account; the two rule pages we can actually read cover the evaluation and the brokerage account, and across those two the floor gets easier, not harder — trailing becomes "a static minimum balance", and the daily loss limit "has been removed from our BluLive/Funded accounts". The Sim Funded rules are a third page we have not been able to open, so that claim is withdrawn as unproven rather than kept as unsourced.
Earn2Trade — Both disqualifiers removed. Earn2Trade is the only firm in the futures set that sells a genuinely fixed drawdown as an end state — "Traders who pass the TCP50 or TCP100 and reach the $400,000 funded trading account have their drawdown fixed at $388,000" — and everything below it freezes at the starting balance anyway. Evaluations and funded LiveSim accounts are end-of-day; only the Live account switches to intraday, and that switch is a choice you make, not one made for you.
Take Profit Trader — The intraday disqualifier was wrong and we have removed it: the floor stops. "The drawdown continues to trail profits until it reaches your starting balance; once it reaches that level, it no longer moves." What we are keeping is the other one, and it is the cleaner objection anyway — the basis flips when you get funded. The Test measures end-of-day only; the PRO account you earn measures intraday peak equity including unrealised gains. You qualify under the gentler rule and then trade under the harder one.
Apex Trader Funding — We had this disqualified for intraday trailing, and that was wrong. Apex sells two lines — Intraday Trail and EOD Trail — and on the funded account both stop: "Once the Intraday Threshold reaches Starting Balance + $100, it stops increasing." Its own product data confirms it, listing the liquidation floor as exactly 25,100 / 50,100 / 100,100 / 150,100. A floor locked at your starting balance is not chasing anything. It also carries the largest unmanipulated review base in this study: 4.2 from 20,336, with no Trustpilot warning of any kind.
Tradeify — The disqualifier was wrong and is withdrawn. We carried PROFIT_DELETE against this firm, and its own payout policy says the opposite in as many words: above the per-request cap "the remaining profit stays in your account for future payouts". Its forfeiture clause exists, and it is the ordinary kind — "any breach of this Section 6.7" — a penalty for conduct the agreement lists in advance, which is not the same as taking back money earned by trading normally. What stands is what this row always described and never had a code for: it markets end-of-day drawdown while enforcing the breach continuously intraday, its own agreement failing the account if the balance drops below the limit "at ANY point". Growth accounts carry a 35% consistency rule, 5 minimum profitable days, and require half your profit to come from trades held over 10 seconds.
Bulenox — One price and two floors, chosen at checkout. Option 1 trails live equity — "trailing for realized and non-realized gains" — and Option 2 moves only "when the profit is made at the end of the trading day". Both stop at the starting balance +$100, and both sentences saying so are labelled for the Master Account: during the challenge the firm's own example reads "The maximum drawdown will always move $3,000 from the highest account balance." The split is among the best read here, the first $10,000 at 100% and 90% after.
My Funded Futures — Both disqualifiers came off. The floor freezes — "The MLL locks permanently once it reaches $100 above the starting balance" — and three of its four plans never touch intraday equity at all: Builder, Flex and Pro trail on the daily close, only Rapid switches to intraday when funded. It also holds the best verified record in this entire study: 4.9 from 20,390 reviews. The high-risk tag on its Trustpilot page is attached to the whole investment category and is not a finding against it.
Elite Trader Funding — Eight products sold from one contract, and the contract is where the money is decided. Every plan freezes its floor once you bank the drawdown plus $100, which is the good half. The other half is that five payouts, fifty active days or $25,000 converts you to LIVE ELITE, and "Upon conversion, all Elite Sim-Funded Accounts will be closed and no payouts from those accounts will be owed."
DayTraders.com — Three floors sold side by side, and the firm labels each one before you pay: Static is a "Fixed drawdown floor that never moves.", Trailing rises with live equity, EOD and S2F rise only at the close — and it commits in writing that the type survives the exam, "At DayTraders.com, the rules you pass with are the rules you trade under." The catch is not the drawdown, it is where the money is. The advertised 100% is 100% of SIMULATED profit, the only stage with a real market pays 80/20, and its own figure for reaching that stage is that "We currently transition around 1% of traders that come through the sim funded program."
Funded Futures Family — Requesting a payout on a Premier Plus account — requesting it, not receiving it — moves the drawdown up to the base account balance and locks it there for the life of the account. On the plan the firm sells as having no buffer and no consistency rule, that is the buffer, charged at the moment you ask for money.
FundedNext Futures — The same end-of-day loss limit at both stages — published in three places, frozen at your starting balance. What it does cost: up to 3.5% off every payout, caps of $1,500–$6,000 a request, and a route to live capital that closes your funded accounts and forfeits the simulated profit left in them, with live deposits capped at $10,000 across every Flex account you hold.
FXIFY Futures — The payout moves the floor: "After each withdrawal, the max drawdown locks at the account's starting balance." On a $50,000 Standard account the trailing limit is $2,000 wide, and a request can be made as soon as profit is $100 above a $500 buffer — so a first payout worth $60 before the split converts a $2,000 cushion into a $600 one. The firm publishes the same event at a larger size and does not soften it: a $100,000 account at $102,500 takes a $900 payout and the worked example ends "Max Drawdown → $100,000", where the trail would have left the floor at $98,500. What does NOT change is the floor itself — one end-of-day trailing limit that locks at the starting balance, identical in the evaluation and in the funded account.
Goat Funded Futures — A Trustpilot score stuck around 2.8 with roughly half of all reviews at one star — the weakest sentiment in the futures category. Its own published figures for the EOD Challenge drawdown are internally inconsistent.
AquaFutures — Five products sold from one configurator: Beginner, Standard Evaluation, Instant Pro, Instant Standard, and Flex. The binding contract contains zero trading parameters, while marketing promises on-demand payouts and instant refunds that the fine print restricts with weekly cycles, winning-day hurdles, and a refund delayed until the fourth payout.
Top One Futures — Every figure a trader trades under is on the shop window, and the contract that governs the money contains none of them: the words drawdown, daily loss, loss limit, trailing and equity appear nowhere in it, and its clause 5 sends the reader back to a webpage the firm edits at will. All sixteen product cards publish one drawdown mode and never define it, so nothing we saved says whether an open position can breach the floor or where a trailing floor stops rising.
Uprofit — The floor is the good news, and it is published as a figure rather than as a promise: on Flex the drawdown "starts at $48,000 and updates up to $50,000", so it trails on the daily close and then stops dead at the balance you began with. Legacy is the same firm answering the same question the other way — "Pro Drawdown EOD . The largest drop from the highest point of your account balance, Always Updated at the end of the trading day", with no stopping point published anywhere — and its page announces the withdrawals in its own step three without ever stating a split, a frequency, a cap or a threshold. The most a payout can be worth is answered twice: $4,500 on the page that sells the flagship, $1,500 on the only account sheet the firm publishes.
Traders Launch — Five one-step products across futures (NYC and 22-Hour sessions) and crypto. EOD drawdown locks at starting balance with no daily loss limit, and payouts process daily once above +1% buffer. But marketing claims of "no payout caps" collide with a $100,000 cumulative pause, and terms state traders referred by partners may be denied payouts entirely.
Lucid Trading — All six programmes read plan by plan on 28 July, at the $25,000 in each. Its help centre publishes fifty-seven rule articles, dated and attributed, and four of the six hold the same end-of-day loss limit at the same dollar figure in the evaluation and in the funded account. Almost nothing else is shared: LucidFlex caps five payouts at $1,000, LucidPro and LucidDirect deny any payout count, LucidDaily caps the day at $6,000 instead of the request, LucidBlack pays $750 a time. Consistency runs 0%, 20%, 40% and 60% depending on which one you bought. Two things apply to all of them — every plan ends by being "moved live", and the live article says that move is the risk team's decision; and the terms of use answer 403 to a browser.
FuturesElite — Four products sold across two contradictory rulebooks: Elite, Prime, Nitro, and Instant. While marketing sells "No Profit Buffers" and one-time fees with "No recurring monthly subscription charges", Prime and Nitro enforce non-withdrawable loss-limit buffers (MLL + $100), and the contract and inactivity rules enforce automatic 30-day recurring subscription renewals. In late August 2026 the firm introduced a discretionary exit to FuturesElite Live after five payouts, but on simulated accounts payouts remain flat-capped ($2,000 on 50K Elite) with no growth without risk team approval.
Atlas Funded Futures — Five futures products sold from one page under three sets of names that do not agree, and one contract that never once says the word futures. That contract — the only rulebook the firm publishes, dated 20/09/2025 — sets its risk parameters for seven challenges whose names only half match the checkout tabs, sends a futures trader to Forex Factory for its news rule, and fixes daily limits for three products the shop no longer sells. The futures page promises "Our rules are clear, published upfront, and don't change after you've started trading." while clause 1.2.1 of that contract reserves the right to change them on seven days' notice.
Blue Guardian Futures — The best rulebook in this house, sold by the worst pages in it. The floor is End-of-Day trailing on the closed balance and one sentence per plan says it works that way "during both the Evaluation and Funded stages" — the only sentences in this firm's archive that answer whether the floor changes once the money is real. It locks at the starting balance, and a withdrawal moves it to "your starting balance + $100", which is a tightening of exactly $100 and is published. What this row charges is the paperwork around that. The card that sells this market promises "No Consistency Rule" while the Standard rules impose "a 40% consistency rule applies on Funded Accounts only" and Reserve 50% on the challenge. And Reserve runs two rulebooks by purchase date: "Reserve Accounts purchased before July 27, 2026 will remain under their original payout rules for the life of the account", and those original rules are on no page we hold.
Phidias Propfirm — We got this firm wrong twice, in opposite directions, and both corrections are below. It publishes a full legal identity — Phidias Propfirm Limited, Gibraltar registration GICO.123937-76 — and its Express-to-Live drawdown really is static at both stages with no consistency rule, cleared to live capital through Dorman Trading, a genuinely CFTC-registered FCM. What keeps it out is not the rules. It is that Trustpilot carries an active fabricated-reviews warning against it, and that its two published rulebooks contradict each other on numbers that can cost you an account.
Purdia Capital — Five products sold from one configurator: Instant Funded (EOD), Static Instant Funded, EOD Evaluation, Pro Evaluation, and Pilot 001 Pioneer. The entire site renders via JavaScript shells from a single script bundle. While marketing sells "No Payout Caps" and stable terms, the simulation enforces a $10,000 profit/payout ceiling, the Pioneer pilot caps the first withdrawal at $2,500 with a $3,000 retained buffer, and the contract allows unilateral rule changes at any time.
The Legends Trading — Its marketing and plan cards sell "No daily loss limit" and "Daily Loss Limit: None", yet its plans FAQ specifically asks "What Happens if I Go Over My Daily Max Loss or EOD Trailing Max Loss Parameters?". Contract carries zero trading rules, zero drawdown mechanics, and zero payout parameters.
E8 Futures — Trustpilot withholds this firm's rating and serves a fabricated-reviews notice in its place. A second charge stood here for a fortnight and has been withdrawn: that the funded stage adds a 35% consistency rule and a daily drawdown limit the evaluation does not have. It may well be true — it is not the kind of thing anybody invents — but it was read on e8markets.com/futures, and that page answered 403 on 30 July and 404 on the 31st and again on 3 August. We cannot show it to you, so we do not charge it.
Blueberry Futures — Marketed as broker-backed by Blueberry Markets, a real ASIC-regulated broker — but the entity you actually contract with is BBEducation Incorporated, registered in the Cayman Islands. The regulated name on the tin is not who you sign with.
The Trading Pit (Futures) — The withdrawal cap is the blocker: 50% of realized profit, hard-capped at $2,500 on a $50,000 account — 5% of account size per payout, falling to 3.5% on the $100K and 3.3% on the $150K. The drawdown itself is the good news: an end-of-day trail that freezes at the starting balance and never moves down, which is the best shape this axis has.
Swiss Firmup — Launched February 2026 — too new to have any track record. Its own French-language site does not name a clearing firm; a named route to real FCMs (Sweet Futures or Dorman Trading) appears only in the launch press release, not in on-site rules.
FunderPro Futures — Three challenges from one page — Beginner, Mid-Level and Professional — sharing a 6% target and an end-of-day floor that locks at the starting balance, and one page stating the consistency rule three different ways: the banner sells "40% CONSISTENCY RULE", the tooltip enforces 45%-of-target with the excess added to the target, and the table row reads "40% Eval / 50% Funded". The help centre agrees with the row, so the tooltip is the odd figure out.
TX3 Futures — Three futures models — Type X, SX and GTX — and six saved files behind all three: two captures of one marketing page, and four fetches of its help centre, two addresses tried twice each, that answered 404 every time. No terms, no rules page and no legal notice for this brand is in the archive, and neither capture of the marketing page carries a footer at all. The firm points at its own rulebook with a button reading "Read the full rules" and we never pressed it, so almost everything on this row is unread — our gap rather than their silence. Its sibling FOREX brand does advertise a "Futures FAQ's" link in its footer, but a saved page preserves the text of a link and not its address, so nothing on disk proves the firm ever pointed at the two that answered 404. The one parameter card it does print is tabbed: the header "Rule Specs" is followed by two tab labels flattened onto a single line, "Evaluation Funded", and then by exactly one set of rows — so its six figures, a trailing max drawdown of $3,000 among them, belong to one stage and the page does not say which.
FundedSeat — Five documented futures models with payouts from day one and a 90% split, all sharing an end-of-day floor that locks at the starting balance plus $100. The contract carries no trading parameter at all — it delegates to an Intercom help centre on another host — and the shop sells a sixth model, "1 Step Daily Max", that the help centre never documents anywhere.
Funded Futures Network — Sells its floor on "End Of Day" and runs one of its five products the other way round: the Express MAX evaluation moves only on closed trades, and once funded "the drawdown is unrealized — it updates based on open positions including unrealized losses" — which its own help centre grades "This is the most restrictive drawdown type."
Redline Futures Funding — Brand new in 2026 with zero reviews on its own profile as of June — trader-friendly rules on paper, essentially no track record to judge. No live broker or FCM is named; it states only “real CME prices, simulated execution.”
Taurus Arena — Sells futures challenges as PRIME, FREES and Direct Prime, funded stage a simulated “Sim Profit Account”; the floor trails intraday with a paid “EOD Drawdown” upgrade and no stopping point published. Its own terms name two companies — “TAURUS ARENA LTD” in the opening clause and “DALCIA LTD” throughout the rest — and no broker, FCM or regulator appears anywhere.
FundingTicks — Wound down, and its own notice is still up. It calls the wind-down a strategic decision and commits to refunding every active evaluation and funded account in full “irrespective of profit or drawdown status”, with reward splits of 80% and 90% honoured on accounts that had reached target.
EmergeProfit — Miami LLC selling futures evaluations and no-evaluation direct-funded accounts on Tradovate, in Spanish, with the entire rulebook in its own help centre rather than in the contract. The floor is the good half: it trails only on the daily close and stops for good once "tu balance mínimo alcance el balance inicial de la cuenta". The bad half is the consistency rule, which does not delay a payout — it takes the money: "En caso de tenerlo, se le deducirá de la cuenta para que siga operando." And not one number that decides an account — drawdown, daily limit, profit target, price — could be read before buying: every one of them is assembled by JavaScript behind a size selector.
1of1Funding — Puerto Rico-based, with payout-access complaints among the reviews we read. We did not read its rules closely enough to score it, so there is no verdict here either way — only the Trustpilot figures below, with the date we read them. Its own site cannot be read at all: on 14 September 2026 oneofonefunding.com and its www both answered with Cloudflare error 1014 — the domain points at a Cloudflare zone held by a different account — and the same answer comes back from any network, so nothing it says can be checked first-hand.
Zenit Funding — This is the one firm in the group where the accusation partly survives, and it survives on one plan rather than on the firm. Its Expert plan locks: "Once your account balance reaches $52,000 at session close (EOD), the Max Loss Limit is permanently locked at $50,100" — and it survives a withdrawal, which Zenit states outright. Its Classic plan, the one sold in three sizes against Expert's one, has no such clause anywhere on the page.
Rev One Trading — One futures programme, Rev One Flex, in four sizes. The floor trails end-of-day on closed equity and, by the firm's own words, “never locks in place”, so a winning run raises the bar for good; on the funded side crossing 4% multiplies the split down instead of closing the account, which is the trade it sells. Against that, the About page's central promise — “The rules stay put. Everything is on the rules page, and nothing changes after you've paid.” — is cancelled by clause 8.2 of its own Terms: “Trading Rules are subject to change at any time, in the Company's sole and absolute discretion, with or without notice.” The binding contract is also two months older than the product: it still sells “Classic” and “Rally” and never “Flex”.
Phoenix Trader Funding — Two of its six plans change the drawdown model at the stage boundary: both Spark cards carry the rows "Drawdown Type Eval EOD Drawdown Type Funded Real-Time", so the floor is measured once a day while you are being examined and continuously once the account can pay you. Phoenix ranks those two methods itself, on the page it sells from — "the EOD calculation method is by far the most advantageous for you". Classic does not shift and Merit is static at both stages, so the code is earned by Spark alone.
4PropTrader — Dubai-based with no financial regulator disclosed anywhere, a mixed futures-plus-CFD offering, and a daily loss limit that consumes half the end-of-day drawdown band before the max even comes into play.
Funding Futures — An opaque payout gate reviewers had to reverse-engineer: on a $50,000 account you must be roughly $4,000 above a “buffer” before any payout releases — disclosed nowhere obvious. Distinct from Funded Futures Network and Funded Futures Family despite the similar name.
Fast Track Trading — Orlando-based and not listed or vetted by the major aggregators — unclear whether by choice or failed vetting — with thin independent verification despite claiming legitimacy.
TheFuturesDesk — Topstep acquired it on 1 April 2026, and its own homepage footer now names Topstep Brokerage LLC. It cannot share this list with its owner: the shortlist promises no two firms from the same parent, and keeping that promise is worth more than the entry.
Nexgen ProTrader Funding — Read again on 13 September 2026, plan by plan, this time from the GitBook the firm runs its rules in and from the trader agreement it hosts as a PDF. The floor is the good half and it is genuinely good: end-of-day drawdown that locks at the starting balance plus the max loss plus $100, no daily loss limit at either stage, news explicitly unrestricted, and a payout that leaves the floor untouched. The entity is named — Nexgen ProTrader Funding LLC — and AMP Futures, a registered FCM, is named in the contract as where the firm's own live account sits. What it does not survive is its own agreement. The binding semi-live contract asks seven trading days and 40% consistency where the payout page and the homepage publish five and 50%; it sets a $500 withdrawal floor against a published $250 minimum with $350 above buffer; and it pays a trader who closes an account before 16 confirmed payouts 15% of the profit, while the homepage sells a 100% split.
PropShopTrader — Estonian, unregulated by its own account, and the one firm in this register whose numbers we could not read off our own copy: every drawdown, MAE cap and position limit is published inside tables our capture flattened into one cell per line, so eleven futures plans carry a verified price and almost no verified figure. What the firm states in sentences is the shape, and the shape is unusual — the evaluation floor is a "max trailing drawdown" whose stopping point appears nowhere on the site, while the funded stage is the kinder half: "Static drawdown mirrors the tier demonstrated during Evaluation and does not trail upward as profits increase." Underneath both sits a per-trade cap of "50% of the original account drawdown" which, on Forge and Sprint, ends the account on the first breach and counts an open trade's unrealised loss, so no exit discipline protects against it.
Halcyon Trader Funding — Three futures programs, not one: Lite trails on live equity and never freezes, Prime runs an end-of-day floor with a 40% consistency rule, and Dynamic lets the buyer pick between the two at purchase. Every drawdown, target and payout figure lives in the help centre, not in the agreement the trader signs, and that agreement reserves the right to deny a reward the homepage counts as “ZERO”.

crypto · 5

Breakout Prop — Crypto-only, so it sits outside the CFD comparison this register was built for. It has been acquired by Kraken — which we did not know when we first read it, and which is the kind of backing almost nobody else in this list has.
HyroTrader — The only firm read here whose trades run on the customer's own exchange account — a Bybit API key, USDT perpetuals, and the firm's own words for it are "This is real market execution, not a simulated feed." Against that: its flagship One Step product is described by no binding document at all. Both terms documents describe a single two-phase product, so the One Step buyer is bound by a five-row table and three help-centre articles, and the 6% maximum loss it advertises is never once said to be measured against balance or against equity.
Klein Funding — The platform is the plan, and the checkout does not say so. On Cleo there is no consistency rule, no minimum trading days and leverage stops at 1:5; on Bybit there is a 45%/30% Stability Score, a fifty-second minimum holding time, an instrument whitelist enforced by immediate breach, and 1:100. Same firm, same shop, same price list. Its own FAQ then promises "We dont have any trailing drawdown for maximum flexibility ! All drawdowns are static." while the page beside it fails you on a touch: "If your equity meets the any drawdown level on any given time, you will fail the challenge."
Mubite — Almost every headline on this site is stated twice and the two statements do not agree. Seven contradictions are filed against it and five of them cost a trader money — they are not stale numbers in a corner, they are the profit split, the payout terms and the drawdown. Its own split is published as a range on one page and as a figure on another: "Two-Step Challenge: 80% to 90% profit split."
Plutus Trade Base — Five products are sold and the binding document describes four. The 2 Step Challenge sits in the main navigation of every page with its own plan page and its own six-size price list, and the text of the Terms never mentions it; the FAQ answers that "PTB's Lightning, Freedom, and Adventure plans are all one-step", and the homepage sells the two-step product and then prints, further down the same page, "1-Step Challenge only. No two-step gauntlet on any plan."

prediction · 4

Funding Predicts — The document you agree to when you pay contains no number about trading. Its Terms of Use run fourteen numbered sections and clause 4 names the categories — "profit targets, maximum drawdown limits, daily loss limits, and minimum trading day requirements" — while printing no value for any of them. Every figure in this register's reading of the firm comes from a 71-answer FAQ accordion or from a product page, neither of which the contract makes binding.
PropMarket — The binding agreement is somebody else's and it never mentions this firm. prop.market is one page: nineteen probed paths — /faq, /terms, /rules, /pricing, /trader-agreement, /risk-disclosure and thirteen more — all answer 404, and the help, support, docs and faq subdomains do not resolve at all. Every rule therefore lives in marketing copy on that single page, in a side panel inside the checkout, or in a generic agreement hosted on a vendor's domain.
PolyFundr — It publishes no terms of service, no trader agreement, no privacy policy, no refund policy and no risk disclosure at any public address on either of its hosts. The front page carries one copyright line and no legal links at all. Twenty-one pages were read — five from the marketing site and sixteen from the help centre, which is every page the firm's own index lists — so this is a search that came back empty rather than a search that was not made.
MyFundedCapital — The only firm in this vertical that sells prediction markets as one line among several, and it says so itself: "Prediction Markets runs on its own rulebook — separate from our main program line." That separation is the reason it is filed here rather than beside its other products — a rulebook the firm itself calls separate is a product, and a product is a row.