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

FundingPips vs Funded Futures Network

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

FPIP

FundingPips

✓ VERIFIEDEST. 2022

FFNT

Funded Futures Network

EST. 2022

FUNDINGPIPS

METRIC

FUNDED FUTURES NETWORK

78/100BETTER

TRUST SCORE

—0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

80%TIE

PROFIT SPLIT

TIE80%

$2,000,000BETTER

MAX FUNDING

—$250,000

$29BETTER

MIN COST

—$81

2d—

PAYOUT DAYS

BETTER0d

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

FUNDINGPIPS DETAILS

STEPS: 2-phase
DRAWDOWN: Fixed
MARKETS: Forex, Crypto, Indices, Metals, Energies
PLATFORMS: MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker

FUNDED FUTURES NETWORK DETAILS

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

FundingPips PROS

+Min challenge cost of $29 is well below the industry average of $186.7, making entry highly affordable.
+Max funding of $2,000,000 is more than double the industry average of $839,272.7.
+Days to first payout of 2 is significantly faster than the industry average of 6.5 days.
+Weekend holding, news trading, and EA use are all permitted, offering broad trading flexibility.

FundingPips CONS

−Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%, giving traders a smaller earnings share.
−Overall drawdown of 10% exceeds the industry average of 7.9%, requiring traders to absorb larger losses.
−No fee refund is offered, meaning traders cannot recover the challenge cost upon passing.

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

FundingPips

Higher trust score (78/100). Slower payouts at 2d. 80% profit split.

START WITH FPIP