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 Funded Futures Network

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

DNAF

DNA Funded

FFNT

Funded Futures Network

EST. 2022

DNA FUNDED

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

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

DNA FUNDED DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

FUNDED FUTURES NETWORK DETAILS

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

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

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

DNA Funded

Higher trust score (0/100). Slower payouts at —d.

START WITH DNAF