All firms

Lionheart Funding Program

TIER 3
Firm
CFD
Rules read
2026-07-24

Everything below traces to a sentence this firm published, saved on the date shown.

Owned by Australian PropTradeTech, with no independent regulation disclosed and an up-to-95% split claim. Nothing verifiable stands behind the headline.

TIER 3We would not take it

Judged, clean of all seven hard bars, and the scorecard still came in under the bar. Nothing here is an accusation — it is a firm we would not open an account with, and the card says on which axes it fell short.

Scorecard

11out of 25
13 · tier 2 minimum18 · tier 1 minimum
Drawdown2

Trails, but only freezes far above your starting balance

Backing0

No entity named, or the licence belongs to someone else

Getting paid3

Workable, but a cap or a waiting period bites

Coherence5

Every page we read agreed with every other

Record1

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.

Trustpilot

2.7519 reviews

profile read 2026-07-24 · lionheartfundingprogram.com

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?

We have not read enough of this firm to answer.

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?

We have not read enough of this firm to answer.

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?

We have not read enough of this firm to answer.

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 say
Coverage0% read

Could you read the rule before paying, and can they change it afterwards?

0 points earned, out of 0

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.

We have not read: Where the rule that binds you is published · Can it change the rules without notice · Is the binding document dated

The company behind it

we did not read enough to say
Coverage0% read

If it goes wrong, which company do you claim against, and under whose laws?

0 points earned, out of 0

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.

Normal for this whole industry

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.

We have not read: 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 say
Coverage0% read

Do your orders reach a market, or is all of it a simulation?

0 points earned, out of 0

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.

Normal for this whole industry

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.

We have not read: What the funded account is · Conditions to reach a real market

Rules readon 2026-07-24· source: a third party we consider reliable

We read its rules and scored it, but did not price every plan it sells individually.