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
DNA Funded vs Aqua Funded
Side-by-side comparison of trust scores, profit splits, payout speed, and real trader reviews. Independent data — no sponsored rankings.
DNAF
DNA Funded
AQUA
Aqua Funded
EST. 2023
DNA FUNDED
METRIC
AQUA FUNDED
0/100—
TRUST SCORE
BETTER54/100
0/5TIE
RATING
TIE0/5
—
PROFIT SPLIT
90%
—
MAX FUNDING
$2,000,000
—
MIN COST
$1
—
PAYOUT DAYS
7d
—
PASS RATE
—
0TIE
REVIEW COUNT
TIE0
DNA FUNDED DETAILS
- STEPS
- -phase
AQUA FUNDED DETAILS
- STEPS
- 2-phase
- DRAWDOWN
- Trailing
- MARKETS
- Forex, Indices, Metals, Commodities, Crypto
- PLATFORMS
- MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker
DNA Funded PROS
- +No performance data is available to identify any above-average metrics for this firm
- +No fee, payout, or structure data provided to evaluate competitiveness
- +No platform or market data available to assess trading flexibility
- +Country of operation (Australia) is noted, but no regulatory or structural data exists
DNA Funded CONS
- −No data is provided for this firm, making any meaningful comparison impossible
- −Traders cannot assess profit split, funding, or costs against the 84.7% and $186.7 averages
- −Complete absence of data is a significant transparency concern for traders making financial decisions
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.
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