Both E8 Markets and FundingPips built their reputation on getting forex traders funded quickly, with flexible evaluation structures instead of one rigid gauntlet. The question isn’t which is “faster” — it’s which firm’s speed comes without rules that sabotage your style.
Evaluation speed and number of phases
Speed in this niche is mostly a function of how many phases you have to clear and how fast the rules let you take them.
- E8 Markets is known for offering multiple evaluation formats, including shorter one-phase and standard multi-phase paths, so you can pick how much proving you want to do before funding.
- FundingPips similarly spans one-step, two-step, and instant-style programs, letting frequent traders skip straight to fewer hurdles.
The honest framing: fewer phases means faster funding but usually tighter rules or a higher relative target per phase. There’s no free speed. Match the format to your realistic weekly output rather than the fastest-sounding option, and confirm the current program menu on each firm’s page: E8 Markets · FundingPips.
Profit targets and drawdown rules
The target and the drawdown have to be read together — a modest target inside a tight drawdown can be harder than a big target with room to breathe.
- Both firms scale the profit target with the number of phases: one-step programs typically ask for a larger single target, while two-step programs split it across phases.
- Drawdown comes in maximum (overall) and daily flavors on both. Whether the maximum is static (balance-based) or trailing (equity-based) depends on the specific program you buy — and that choice decides how much a given trade can hurt you.
A static, balance-based maximum is kinder to traders who let winners run, because the floor doesn’t chase your equity higher. A trailing maximum punishes giving profit back. Before committing, run your target and drawdown together through the prop-firm challenge calculator to confirm the math is survivable at your win rate and average R — and verify the drawdown type directly with the firm, since these get revised.
Platforms and instruments
Both firms serve forex, metals, indices, and commodity CFDs, with crypto availability varying by program and region. On the platform side, both support mainstream retail terminals, and MT5 is a common denominator — see the MT5 integration notes if your journaling and automation depend on it.
The platform choice matters more than traders expect for one reason: data hygiene. If your fills don’t flow automatically into a journal, you end up retyping trades from memory, and the record you review is already distorted. Shibiki connects to common broker platforms so every fill is captured as it happens — no manual entry, no survivorship bias in your own log.
Scaling plans and profit split
Both firms reward sustained performance with a scaling plan — larger allocations as you hit milestones — and both advertise a trader-favorable profit split.
- E8 Markets offers account growth for consistent funded traders and a competitive split.
- FundingPips likewise ties account increases to milestone performance and pays a trader-weighted share.
As everywhere in this industry, the first payout carries the most conditions: minimum trading days, sometimes a consistency check, and program-specific timing. Treat the headline split as the ceiling and read the withdrawal terms in full — a firm with a slightly lower split but a faster, cleaner first payout can be better for cash flow than a higher split gated behind a long waiting period.
Cost per challenge
Both firms price a ladder of account sizes, and both run frequent promotions that make any quoted price stale within weeks.
| What to compare | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| One-step vs two-step price | Fewer phases often cost more per attempt |
| Reset / retry economics | Breaching often turns cheap challenges expensive |
| Refund of fee on first payout | Some programs return the challenge cost |
| Promo vs list price | Sale pricing is near-constant; verify live |
The real cost isn’t the sticker — it’s reset fees when you keep breaching, which is almost always a sizing problem rather than a strategy one. If you’re resetting repeatedly, the fix is smaller risk per trade, not a cheaper challenge. Confirm current pricing and refund terms on each firm’s page before you buy.
Best fit by trading frequency
- High-frequency / intraday scalpers who close flat every session are well-served by the one-step or instant-style programs on either firm — fewer phases, faster funding, and trailing drawdown barely touches you when you don’t hold winners into a peak.
- Lower-frequency / swing traders who hold across sessions should favor a two-step program with a static drawdown, giving room to let positions breathe without a trailing line ratcheting up behind every winner.
Whichever route you take, the trap is scaling up on an edge that’s really just variance. Shibiki addresses that directly: it auto-journals your fills, then reports live edge health with a Wilson confidence interval around your expectancy, so a good run is labeled as signal or noise before you buy a bigger account or a second firm. Its hard, broker-side risk limits also stop a single session from breaching either firm’s drawdown while you’re away from the screen — and if you run E8 and FundingPips in parallel, it can copy your entries across both so your sizing stays consistent instead of drifting account to account.
Confirm every figure — phases, targets, drawdown type, split, payout conditions — on the firm’s own page, because these terms change more often than any comparison stays accurate.
Related: E8 Markets · FundingPips · MT5 integration