RISK

Trading carries substantial risk of loss. Prop evaluation fees are typically non-refundable and the majority of traders do not pass first attempts. This comparison is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read full risk warning

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON · 2026

AquaFutures vs Funded Futures Network

Side-by-side comparison of trust scores, profit splits, payout speed, and real trader reviews. Independent data — no sponsored rankings.

AQFT
AquaFutures
FFNT
Funded Futures Network
EST. 2022
AQUAFUTURES
METRIC
FUNDED FUTURES NETWORK
0/100TIE
TRUST SCORE
TIE0/100
0/5TIE
RATING
TIE0/5
PROFIT SPLIT
80%
MAX FUNDING
$250,000
MIN COST
$81
PAYOUT DAYS
0d
PASS RATE
0TIE
REVIEW COUNT
TIE0

AQUAFUTURES DETAILS

STEPS
-phase

FUNDED FUTURES NETWORK DETAILS

STEPS
2-phase
DRAWDOWN
Trailing EOD
MARKETS
Futures
PLATFORMS
Rithmic, Onyx, Quantower

AquaFutures PROS

  • +Listed as a futures firm, which offers an asset class not available at all prop firms.
  • +Firm name suggests an association with the Aqua brand, which may indicate shared infrastructure or credibility.
  • +Futures trading can provide access to high-liquidity instruments with defined contract specifications.
  • +The futures category is a growing segment within prop trading, reflecting market demand.

AquaFutures CONS

  • No data has been provided for this firm, making any objective assessment impossible.
  • Without metrics such as profit split, drawdown, funding levels, or challenge cost, no comparisons can be made.
  • Traders should seek full disclosure of terms before considering this firm, as critical information is absent.

Funded Futures Network PROS

  • +Min challenge cost of $81 is well below the industry average of $186.7, significantly reducing entry costs.
  • +Days to first payout of 0 means instant payouts, far better than the industry average of 6.5 days.
  • +On-demand payout frequency gives traders maximum flexibility in accessing their profits.
  • +Profit target of 6% is below the industry average of 7.9%, making the challenge easier to complete.

Funded Futures Network CONS

  • Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%, reducing the trader's share of earnings.
  • Max funding of $250,000 is significantly below the industry average of $839,272.7, limiting scale.
  • Two-step funding process is above the industry average of 1.6 steps, adding an extra evaluation hurdle.

PROPDNA VERDICT

AquaFutures
Higher trust score (0/100). Slower payouts at —d.
Funded Futures Network
Higher trust score (0/100). Faster payouts at 0d. 80% profit split.

RELATED LINKS

AquaFutures Full Review →Funded Futures Network Full Review →All Comparisons →
← COMPARE ALL FIRMS ON PROPDNA

Affiliate disclosure: PropDNA may earn a commission if you start a challenge through links on this page. Scores are calculated algorithmically from verified trader reviews — not influenced by commercial relationships.Privacy Policy