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 Quadeye

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

DNAF

DNA Funded

QDEY

Quadeye

DNA FUNDED

METRIC

QUADEYE

0/100TIE

TRUST SCORE

TIE0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

—

PROFIT SPLIT

—

MAX FUNDING

—

MIN COST

—

PAYOUT DAYS

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

DNA FUNDED DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

QUADEYE DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

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

Quadeye PROS

+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate

Quadeye CONS

−No trading metrics were provided, preventing any comparison to industry averages
−India-based prop firms may face additional regulatory complexity for international traders
−Absence of data on profit split, funding, drawdown, or payouts limits trader confidence

PROPDNA VERDICT