Both firms are built for forex traders, both run multiple evaluation tracks, and both change their offers often enough that any spec sheet you find is a snapshot, not a contract. What separates them is the range of models they put in front of you — and how well each one matches how you actually trade.
Use this as a structural map, then confirm the live numbers on each firm’s own page before you spend a cent.
Forex evaluation models compared
The defining trait of both MyFundedFX and The Funded Trader is that neither sells a single path. Each runs a menu of programs — different phase counts, targets, and rulesets aimed at different trader profiles.
- MyFundedFX has historically offered a spread of evaluation types, from more classic multi-phase challenges to faster or lighter-touch routes.
- The Funded Trader similarly markets several named programs, each tuned toward a different balance of difficulty, cost, and speed to funding.
Because both firms rotate and rebrand these tracks regularly, the useful question isn’t “which program is best” but “which program’s rules survive my strategy’s worst week.” A scalper and a swing trader will thrive on completely different tracks at the same firm.
Whatever track you pick, model it before you buy. Feed your average R, win rate, and typical trade frequency into a prop firm challenge calculator to see how many trades it takes to reach the target and whether the drawdown can absorb a normal losing streak along the way.
Drawdown types across programs
Drawdown mechanics are where these firms differentiate their programs internally, so you can’t reason about “the firm” — only about the specific track you’re on.
Across both firms’ menus you’ll encounter the usual family:
- A daily loss limit that resets each trading day.
- An overall/max loss limit that ends the account if breached.
- Depending on the program, that max limit may be static (anchored to your starting balance) or carry a trailing component that follows your equity or balance upward.
The static-vs-trailing distinction is the one that quietly kills accounts. A trailing floor moves up as you profit, so a strong session followed by an ordinary-sized loss can breach a limit that felt comfortably far away an hour earlier. Both firms publish the exact behaviour per program, and both adjust it periodically — verify the model for your specific account before sizing anything.
The practical defence is the same regardless of firm: size so a single trade can’t threaten the daily cap, and never let a green day tempt you into oversizing against a trailing floor. Shibiki’s approach is to make that non-negotiable — you set a hard per-day loss and per-trade risk once, and it’s enforced at the broker rather than relying on you to remember the new floor after a win.
Platforms and instruments
Both firms are forex-first and typically support the standard retail platforms traders already know, with instrument coverage spanning major and minor FX pairs, metals, indices, and often crypto depending on the account.
For most traders the platform question comes down to one thing: does your existing tooling connect cleanly? If you journal, run risk automation, or copy trades, you want a platform your stack already speaks to. Shibiki connects on the MT5 integration so trades journal themselves and hard risk limits reach the account without you re-keying anything — which matters more the more accounts you run.
Consistency requirements
This is an underrated dealbreaker. Many forex firms — including tracks at both of these — apply a consistency rule: no single day (or single trade) may represent too large a share of your total profit, both during the evaluation and sometimes on funded payouts.
The effect is subtle but real. A consistency rule quietly penalises the one-big-day trader and rewards steady, repeatable results. If your edge comes from occasionally catching a huge move, a strict consistency requirement can make an otherwise-passed account unfundable or an otherwise-earned payout ineligible.
Both firms tune these rules by program and revise them over time, so read the fine print for your track. If you know your profits tend to cluster into a few big sessions, favour a program with a looser consistency requirement — or deliberately trade smaller, more evenly, and let the rule shape a healthier distribution.
Payout terms and splits
Both firms advertise a profit split and a payout cadence, with the trader’s share and the timing of the first withdrawal being the levers they most often adjust for promotions. Treat any headline split as this-week’s number, not a permanent feature.
The more durable question is what feeds the payout. A generous split on an edge that decays after funding is worth little. The traders who actually get paid repeatedly are the ones whose process stays identical between the challenge and the funded account — same size, same stops, same setups. That’s why tracking live edge health on your funded trades matters more than the challenge stats that got you there.
Choosing between the two
There’s no universal winner here — both are multi-program forex firms, and the right answer is a specific track at one of them that fits your style:
- Trade infrequently or swing longer? Favour programs with no punishing time pressure and a drawdown model you’ve verified is static or forgiving.
- Scalp or trade many small clips? Watch platform execution and any per-day consistency caps closely.
- Rely on occasional big wins? Steer toward looser consistency rules, or adapt your sizing to spread profit more evenly.
Read the current terms yourself on the MyFundedFX and The Funded Trader pages, match a program to your real trading data, and only then buy.
Related: MyFundedFX · The Funded Trader · Challenge calculator