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.
The earlier note on this row — the ATFX prop arm, AT Global Markets LLC of St Vincent and the Grenadines, a 30% consistency rule that recalibrates the target instead of failing you — was third-party and predates the pause, and none of it could be re-verified. Eleven addresses were saved on 12 September 2026 and all eleven returned the same notice; the login the notice points at, dashboard.atfunded.com, no longer resolves. The page bodies remain in the firm's own database and answer through its REST API, but they are not published to a visitor, so nothing from them is filed here. The closure is the finding.
Crossed one of the seven hard bars. Open the row and it names which one, with the mechanism spelled out. This is not a low grade — no quantity of virtue elsewhere buys it off, which is why it carries no rank at all.
Disqualified for
The firm has closed
It stopped operating, and the date is on the row. Kept in the register rather than deleted so that somebody searching the name lands on when it closed instead of on an archived sales page. This is not a judgement of how it treated traders while it ran — several of these paid out to the end and shut down when a platform licence was withdrawn.
What they published
“After careful consideration, ATFunded has made the decision to pause operations while we conduct a full review of the business and our current offerings.”Scorecard
12Trails, but only freezes far above your starting balance
A named company, but no financial regulator anywhere — or a light-touch one only
Workable, but a cap or a waiting period bites
Every page we read agreed with every other
Under a year, or too few reviews to mean anything
Each axis is scored 0–5 against a published scale. The line under each bar is the rung this firm landed on — not our summary of it, the scale entry itself.
The score is published anyway, because it is the honest picture: a firm can be strong on four axes and still be disqualified on one mechanism. A disqualifier is not a low grade — it is a rule we will not trade under at any price.
Trustpilot
What this firm published
Everything below is quoted from a page we opened, on the date shown. The quotes are in the firm’s own language, exactly as published — never edited, never shortened, never swapped for a translation. On the Spanish edition our own rendering appears underneath each one, unquoted and marked as ours: the quotation marks on this site mean the words are the firm’s, and nothing we wrote ever wears them. Where we have not read enough to put a number on an axis, we say so instead of guessing.
—
Can you even pass?
Almost nobody who pays for an evaluation ever reaches a funded account, so this is the part of the product most customers actually buy. Every firm advertises its profit target; none of them advertises that target next to how much you are allowed to lose while chasing it.
—
Can you keep the money?
The drawdown takes the account away; the payout rules take the money. Answered by whichever of the two we can measure and is worse — they are two ways of losing the same thing, so a good half cannot pay for a bad one.
—
Is anyone behind it?
A named company, a market, and rules you could read before paying. These three do not substitute for one another — a company you can sue does not stop existing because the account is a simulation — so this is the average of the ones we could measure, not the worst.
We have not read a single plan of this firm, so neither of the two axes that belong to a plan — the floor and the payout path — has anything under it yet.
The rules in writing
we did not read enough to sayCould you read the rule before paying, and can they change it afterwards?
Where the rule that binds you is publishedThey do not say.0/4
we read the page that should answer this and it does not
If the rule that binds you lives in a help article your contract never mentions, you did not sign it.
Below 60% read we publish no number at all, because a grade computed from two facts out of six is not a lenient grade — it is a different measurement wearing the same label.
We have not compared their pages against each other.
Can it change the rules without notice · Is the binding document dated
The company behind it
we did not read enough to sayIf it goes wrong, which company do you claim against, and under whose laws?
Below 60% read we publish no number at all, because a grade computed from two facts out of six is not a lenient grade — it is a different measurement wearing the same label.
Almost no firm here has a financial regulator, because selling simulated evaluations is not a regulated activity anywhere. Of the 114 firms we scored by hand, 96 sat in the bottom two rungs of backing for this reason. So we do not count it against anyone — it only adds when a firm genuinely has one.
The company you contract with · Where it is registered · Its registration number · That company owns the brand · The people behind it are named
The market
we did not read enough to sayDo your orders reach a market, or is all of it a simulation?
Below 60% read we publish no number at all, because a grade computed from two facts out of six is not a lenient grade — it is a different measurement wearing the same label.
Almost none names a broker or a clearing house either, and that follows from the account being a simulation rather than being a second, separate failing. Charging for both would count one fact twice.
What the funded account is · Conditions to reach a real market
We read its rules and scored it, but did not price every plan it sells individually.