Skip to main content

FTMO vs FundingPips: which prop firm is better in 2026?

Across pricing, rules and payout terms, FTMO takes the lead (8 against 4). FundingPips remains the cheaper way in and it pays out a larger share of profits, so the choice is not automatic.

Verified on

FTMO

Forex / CFD · Crypto · Stocks · Trustpilot 4.8/5

Founded in Prague in 2015, FTMO reports more than $450 million paid to traders and closed its acquisition of broker OANDA in December 2025. The 2-Step challenge, static drawdown and no deadline, remains its core product, with fees fully refunded on the first payout. Price is the weak spot, and it rose again in 2026.

Criteria won : 8 / 33

FundingPips

Forex / CFD · Crypto · Trustpilot 4.5/5

FundingPips lets you choose the withdrawal rhythm and prices the split accordingly: 60% weekly, 80% biweekly, 90% on demand, 100% on a monthly cycle. Its four evaluation models keep static drawdown, with only the instant-funding Zero account switching to trailing. Against that, a Striking System closes a funded account on the fourth warning.

Criteria won : 4 / 33

Pricing at equal account size

Cheapest evaluation for a 100 K account.

FTMO

€499

FundingPips

Closest size : 5 K — $29

Full comparison

FTMO vs FundingPips (2026) — Full Comparison
Criterion FTMO FundingPips
Trust
Score 88/100 83/100
Trustpilot 4.8/5 4.5/5
Founded 2015 2022
Headquarters CZ AE
Pricing
Entry price €79 $29
Price for a 100 K account €499
Refundable fee Yes No
Reset price
Account sizes 200 K 200 K
Rules
Steps 1 2
Profit target 10 % 6 %
Max daily loss 3 % 3 %
Max total drawdown 10 % 6 %
Drawdown type Static Static
Time limit Unlimited Unlimited
Consistency rule 50
Min trading days 1
Payouts
Profit split 80 % 80 %
Max profit split 90 % 100 %
First payout 14 days 7 days
Payout frequency A la demande a partir du 14e jour suivant le premier trade, puis tous les 14 jours Cycle au choix : hebdomadaire (60 %), bi-hebdomadaire (80 %), a la demande (90 %) ou mensuel (100 %)
Payout methods
Scaling plan Yes
Max allocation 2 M
Trading
Platforms and instruments mt4, mt5, ctrader, dxtrade, tradingview mt5, ctrader, match-trader
Instruments fx, indices, metals, energy, crypto, stocks fx, indices, metals, energy, crypto
Leverage 1:100 (forex)
News trading Yes
Weekend holding Yes
Expert Advisors Yes
Copy trading Restricted Restricted
Scalping Yes
Hedging Yes

Choose FTMO if…

  • You need a platform FundingPips does not offer: mt4, dxtrade, tradingview.
  • You want the shortest path to funding: 1 evaluation phase against 2 at FundingPips.

Choose FundingPips if…

  • Your budget is the binding constraint: the entry ticket starts at $29, below FTMO.
  • You expect to stay funded long enough for the split to matter: 100 % against 90 % at FTMO.
  • Cash flow matters to you: the first withdrawal comes after 7 days rather than 14.
  • You need a platform FTMO does not offer: match-trader.

Our analysis

What reaches your account

FTMO keeps 90 % of profits, allows a first withdrawal after 14 days, then pays A la demande a partir du 14e jour suivant le premier trade, puis tous les 14 jours. FundingPips keeps 100 % of profits, allows a first withdrawal after 7 days, then pays Cycle au choix : hebdomadaire (60 %), bi-hebdomadaire (80 %), a la demande (90 %) ou mensuel (100 %). Payout frequency deserves as much attention as the split itself: a slightly lower share paid every two weeks compounds faster than a headline percentage locked behind a monthly cycle and a long first-withdrawal delay.

Where you actually trade

FTMO is the only one of the two to offer mt4, dxtrade, tradingview. FundingPips covers match-trader, which its rival does not. Platform choice is not cosmetic: order execution, available order types and the reliability of your automation all depend on it, and switching mid-evaluation is rarely possible.

Track record

FTMO has been running since 2015, 7 years longer than FundingPips. On Trustpilot they sit at 4.8/5 and 4.5/5 respectively. Our trust pillar scores them 97/100 and 81/100, which weighs age, corporate transparency and public payout evidence. In an industry with no financial regulator overseeing these evaluations, longevity and a verifiable payout history are the closest thing to a guarantee.

What you pay to start

FundingPips opens at $29 against €79 for FTMO, a substantial gap on the smallest account. The headline fee is rarely the real cost, though: what matters is the price of a reset after a failed attempt, whether the fee comes back on the first payout, and whether an activation fee appears when you move to a funded account. Compare those three lines in the table above before deciding on price alone.

Drawdown: the rule that decides

FTMO applies a static drawdown capped at 10 %, with a 3 % daily limit. FundingPips applies a static drawdown capped at 6 %, with a 3 % daily limit. Both use the same model, so the difference plays out on the percentages rather than on the mechanism.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better between FTMO and FundingPips?
FTMO wins 8 of the 33 criteria we compare, against 4 for FundingPips. That said, the ranking depends on what you weight: entry cost, drawdown model and payout speed do not point in the same direction for every trader.
Which of the two is cheaper?
FundingPips, with an entry price of $29 against €79. Check the reset price and whether the fee is refunded on the first payout before concluding — those two lines often reverse the ranking.
Which one has the more forgiving drawdown?
Both use a static drawdown, so compare the percentages rather than the mechanism.
Which one offers the larger accounts?
Both cap the evaluation at 200 K. Beyond that, what differs is the scaling plan applied once you are funded.
Can I run both at the same time?
Nothing prevents you from holding accounts at two different firms — many funded traders do, to spread the risk of a single firm changing its rules or delaying a payout. What is usually forbidden is mirroring the same trades across accounts, which most firms treat as copy trading and can void a payout. Check each firm's terms on that specific point.

Other comparisons