FTMO and FundingPips both fund forex and CFD traders through a two-step evaluation, which makes them far more comparable than a forex-vs-futures matchup — same asset class, same broad structure. The decision comes down to the finer print: targets, drawdown behavior, consistency rules, and what a funded dollar actually costs you.
Two-step evaluation structure compared
Both firms use a two-phase model: you clear an initial Challenge phase, then a second phase, before reaching a funded account.
- FTMO runs a Challenge followed by a Verification, each with its own profit target — the second target usually lower than the first.
- FundingPips runs a comparable two-step evaluation with Phase 1 and Phase 2 targets before funding.
The logic is identical: prove the edge twice at descending targets so a single fluke run can’t fund you. What differs is the exact numbers and the surrounding rules, which is where you actually make the choice. Both firms revise these, so confirm the current figures before you buy — anything you read secondhand may already be stale.
Profit targets and phase durations
Both firms set a profit target for each phase, expressed as a percentage of the starting balance, with the second phase typically asking for less than the first. Historically the industry has moved toward no maximum time limit on evaluations — letting you take the phases at your own pace rather than racing a clock — but time-limit policies do change, so verify whether your specific program imposes one.
The practical planning point is the same for either firm: model the target as a number of average-R winners at your real win rate, not as a vague percentage. The prop-firm challenge calculator turns a phase target into “how many trades at my expectancy” so you can see whether the target is realistic for your edge before you pay the evaluation fee — at either firm.
Drawdown: daily and max loss rules
Both firms enforce two floors, and this pair is where most evaluations are actually lost.
- Maximum loss — an overall floor, generally measured from the starting balance, that ends the account if breached.
- Daily loss — a separate per-day floor that ends your session regardless of the overall floor.
For forex challenges the max-loss floor is typically static (measured from the start), so banked profit becomes durable cushion against it — a friendlier mechanic than the trailing floors common on futures accounts. But the daily loss limit is the silent killer: it resets each day and catches traders who chase after a rough morning. Whichever firm you choose, know both numbers before your first trade and treat the daily floor as the harder constraint on any given session.
Consistency and minimum trading days
Beyond the targets and floors, both firms shape how you’re allowed to make the money.
- A consistency rule discourages one outsized day from carrying your whole result. If a single day is disproportionately large relative to your total, it can block a pass or a payout even when you’re comfortably net profitable.
- Minimum trading days requirements stop a one-day sprint from passing an evaluation, forcing you to demonstrate an edge across sessions.
These rules reward the same behavior at both firms: consistent, repeatable size. The trader who makes a steady amount across many days clears them without thinking; the trader who swings for one huge day gets flagged. Read your specific program’s consistency language carefully — the threshold and whether it applies to evaluation, payout, or both varies.
Scaling plans and profit split
Both firms pay you a share of funded-account profit and offer a path to larger capital as you perform.
| FTMO | FundingPips | |
|---|---|---|
| Asset class | Forex / CFDs | Forex / CFDs |
| Evaluation | Two-phase (Challenge + Verification) | Two-phase (Phase 1 + Phase 2) |
| Max-loss floor | Typically static | Typically static |
| Daily loss limit | Yes | Yes |
| Consistency / min days | Yes | Yes |
| Scaling path | Yes | Yes |
The headline split, the withdrawal threshold, the payout cadence, and the scaling triggers all differ between the two and both revise them periodically — so use this table for the structure, and confirm every specific number with the firm directly. The structural reality is identical: consistent rule-abiding trading unlocks larger capital, and one reckless day can undo months of it.
Cost per funded dollar
The number that actually matters isn’t the evaluation fee in isolation — it’s the cost per funded dollar: what you pay to control a given amount of capital, adjusted for how likely you are to pass and how much of the profit you keep.
Compare on all four levers at once:
- Evaluation fee for the account size you want.
- Realistic pass probability given the targets, floors, and consistency rules — a cheaper evaluation with a brutal target can cost more in expectation.
- Profit split on the funded account.
- Reset cost if you breach and want to try again.
A firm that’s cheaper up front but harder to pass, or that pays a smaller split, can be the more expensive choice once you run the full math.
Whichever firm you pick, the variable you most control is whether your edge is genuinely large enough to clear the target before you risk the fee. That’s Shibiki’s job: it auto-journals every trade, tracks live edge health per strategy with a Wilson confidence interval so you know a target is reachable rather than hopeful, and enforces a hard risk limit at the broker a margin inside the firm’s daily and max-loss floors — the same protection whether you’re on FTMO or FundingPips.
Related: FTMO overview · FundingPips overview · the consistency rule explained