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 The Trading Pit Futures

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

Aqua Funded
AQUA
Aqua Funded
EST. 2023
TTPF
The Trading Pit Futures
AQUA FUNDED
METRIC
THE TRADING PIT FUTURES
54/100BETTER
TRUST SCORE
0/100
0/5TIE
RATING
TIE0/5
90%
PROFIT SPLIT
$2,000,000
MAX FUNDING
$1
MIN COST
7d
PAYOUT DAYS
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

THE TRADING PIT FUTURES DETAILS

STEPS
-phase

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.

The Trading Pit Futures PROS

  • +Based in Liechtenstein, which has a well-regulated financial environment offering potential trader protections.
  • +No further data is available to substantiate additional pros at this time.
  • +No platform or market data is provided to assess trading conditions.
  • +No funding or cost data is available to compare against industry benchmarks.

The Trading Pit Futures CONS

  • Almost no operational data is available for The Trading Pit Futures, making comparison impossible.
  • Absence of drawdown, profit split, and funding figures prevents any meaningful evaluation.
  • Note: as a futures firm, drawdown may be expressed in dollar terms and cannot be compared to the 7.9% CFD average.

PROPDNA VERDICT

Aqua Funded
Higher trust score (54/100). Faster payouts at 7d. 90% profit split.
The Trading Pit Futures
Lower trust score (0/100). Slower payouts at —d.

RELATED LINKS

Aqua Funded Full Review →The Trading Pit Futures 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