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 FundedFast
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
FNDF
FundedFast
AQUA FUNDED
METRIC
FUNDEDFAST
54/100BETTER
TRUST SCORE
—0/100
0/5TIE
RATING
TIE0/5
90%BETTER
PROFIT SPLIT
—80%
$2,000,000BETTER
MAX FUNDING
—$400,000
$1BETTER
MIN COST
—$49
7dTIE
PAYOUT DAYS
TIE7d
—
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
FUNDEDFAST DETAILS
- STEPS
- 2-phase
- DRAWDOWN
- Fixed
- MARKETS
- Forex
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.
FundedFast PROS
- +Min challenge cost of $49 is extremely low compared to the industry average of $186.7
- +Fee refund offered, reducing the net cost of the evaluation process
- +Weekend holding is allowed, providing greater trading flexibility
- +Weekly payout frequency offers faster access to profits than many firms
FundedFast CONS
- −Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%
- −Overall drawdown of 10% is above the industry average of 7.9%, indicating less buffer
- −Profit target of 8% is slightly above the industry average of 7.9%, marginally harder to achieve
PROPDNA VERDICT
RELATED LINKS
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