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 Lucid Trading

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

FPIP

FundingPips

✓ VERIFIEDEST. 2022

LCDT

Lucid Trading

FUNDINGPIPS

METRIC

LUCID TRADING

78/100BETTER

TRUST SCORE

—0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

80%—

PROFIT SPLIT

BETTER90%

$2,000,000

MAX FUNDING

—

$29BETTER

MIN COST

—$90

2d—

PAYOUT DAYS

BETTER1d

—

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

LUCID TRADING DETAILS

STEPS: 2-phase
DRAWDOWN: Trailing EOD
MARKETS: Futures
PLATFORMS: NinjaTrader, Tradovate, Rithmic, MotiveWave, QuantTower

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.

Lucid Trading PROS

+Profit split of 90% is above the industry average of 84.7%
+Days to first payout of 1 is significantly faster than the industry average of 6.5 days
+On-demand payouts offer maximum flexibility in accessing earned profits
+Wide platform selection including NinjaTrader, Tradovate, Rithmic, MotiveWave, and QuantTower

Lucid Trading CONS

−No max funding data provided, preventing comparison to the industry average of $839,272.70
−Profit target of 8% is slightly above the industry average of 7.9%, marginally harder to achieve
−Trailing EOD drawdown type can be more restrictive than fixed drawdown structures

PROPDNA VERDICT

FundingPips

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

START WITH FPIP