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

Aqua Funded vs Blue Guardian Futures

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

AQUA

Aqua Funded

EST. 2023

BGFT

Blue Guardian Futures

AQUA FUNDED

METRIC

BLUE GUARDIAN FUTURES

54/100BETTER

TRUST SCORE

—0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

90%—

PROFIT SPLIT

BETTER100%

$2,000,000BETTER

MAX FUNDING

—$450,000

$1BETTER

MIN COST

—$84

7d—

PAYOUT DAYS

BETTER5d

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

AQUA FUNDED DETAILS

STEPS: 2-phase
DRAWDOWN: Trailing
MARKETS: Forex, Indices, Metals, Commodities, Crypto
PLATFORMS: MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker

BLUE GUARDIAN FUTURES DETAILS

STEPS: 1-phase
DRAWDOWN: Trailing EOD
MARKETS: Futures
PLATFORMS: MT5, Matchtrader, Tradelocker, Tradovate, ProjectX, Volsys, Deepcharts

Aqua Funded PROS

+Min challenge cost of just $1 is exceptionally below the industry average of $186.7, making it highly accessible.
+Max funding of $2,000,000 is more than double the industry average of $839,272.7.
+Profit split of 90% significantly exceeds the industry average of 84.7%.
+Weekend holding, news trading, and EA use are all permitted, offering maximum trading flexibility.

Aqua Funded CONS

−Overall drawdown of 10% is above the industry average of 7.9%, requiring traders to manage larger potential losses.
−Profit target of 10% is higher than the industry average of 7.9%, making the challenge harder to pass.
−Days to first payout of 7 is slightly above the industry average of 6.5 days.

Blue Guardian Futures PROS

+Profit split of 100% is the maximum possible, far exceeding the industry average of 84.7%
+Min challenge cost of $84 is well below the industry average of $186.70, reducing entry costs
+Steps to funded is 1, well below the industry average of 1.6, offering a streamlined path to capital
+Days to first payout is 5, slightly faster than the industry average of 6.5 days

Blue Guardian Futures CONS

−Overall drawdown of 3.5% is expressed as a percentage but is exceptionally tight, increasing disqualification risk
−Max funding of $450,000 is below the industry average of $839,272, limiting maximum earning potential
−Futures-only market access restricts traders who prefer Forex, Indices, or other asset classes

PROPDNA VERDICT

Aqua Funded

Higher trust score (54/100). Slower payouts at 7d. 90% profit split.

START WITH AQUA