FundedFast vs AquaFutures

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

FUNDEDFAST DETAILS

+Min challenge cost of $49 is extremely low compared to the industry average of $186.7
+Fee refund offered, reducing the net cost of the evaluation process
+Weekend holding is allowed, providing greater trading flexibility
+Weekly payout frequency offers faster access to profits than many firms

−Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%
−Overall drawdown of 10% is above the industry average of 7.9%, indicating less buffer
−Profit target of 8% is slightly above the industry average of 7.9%, marginally harder to achieve

+Listed as a futures firm, which offers an asset class not available at all prop firms.
+Firm name suggests an association with the Aqua brand, which may indicate shared infrastructure or credibility.
+Futures trading can provide access to high-liquidity instruments with defined contract specifications.
+The futures category is a growing segment within prop trading, reflecting market demand.

−No data has been provided for this firm, making any objective assessment impossible.
−Without metrics such as profit split, drawdown, funding levels, or challenge cost, no comparisons can be made.
−Traders should seek full disclosure of terms before considering this firm, as critical information is absent.

FundedFast

Not yet rated by PropDNA traders. Slower payouts at 7d. 80% profit split.

AquaFutures

Not yet rated by PropDNA traders. Faster payouts at 5d. 90% profit split.