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

Eclipse Trading vs Amplify Trading

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

ECLT

Eclipse Trading

EST. 2007

AMPT

Amplify Trading

ECLIPSE TRADING

METRIC

AMPLIFY TRADING

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

ECLIPSE TRADING DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

AMPLIFY TRADING DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

Eclipse Trading PROS

+Founded in 2007, making it one of the longest-established firms in the dataset.
+Country of operation is listed as Hong Kong, indicating an established international presence.
+Longevity since 2007 suggests operational stability over nearly two decades.
+Early founding date may indicate experience navigating multiple market cycles.

Eclipse Trading CONS

−No trading or financial metrics are available to evaluate this firm objectively.
−Without data on profit split, funding, or costs, no meaningful comparison to industry averages is possible.
−Traders cannot assess key terms like drawdown, payout speed, or profit targets from available data.

Amplify Trading PROS

+Based in the United Kingdom, a well-regulated financial jurisdiction
+UK base may offer traders greater confidence in regulatory oversight
+Established country presence provides geographic transparency
+Listed on PropDNA, giving traders a discovery reference point

Amplify Trading CONS

−No data provided on profit split, max funding, or challenge cost
−No trading conditions such as drawdown, profit target, or payout terms are available
−Traders cannot make an informed comparison without any measurable metrics

PROPDNA VERDICT