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 Nino Options

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

FundingPips
FPIP
FundingPips
✓ VERIFIEDEST. 2022
NINO
Nino Options
FUNDINGPIPS
METRIC
NINO OPTIONS
78/100BETTER
TRUST SCORE
—0/100
0/5TIE
RATING
TIE0/5
80%
PROFIT SPLIT
—
$2,000,000
MAX FUNDING
—
$29
MIN COST
—
2d
PAYOUT DAYS
—
—
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

NINO OPTIONS DETAILS

STEPS
-phase

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.

Nino Options PROS

  • +No data is available on profit split, funding, or cost metrics for this firm
  • +No data is available on drawdown or profit target for this firm
  • +No data is available on payout timing or steps to funded for this firm
  • +No data is available on platforms, markets, or founding date for this firm

Nino Options CONS

  • −Virtually no data is provided, making any objective evaluation impossible
  • −Traders cannot compare this firm's terms to the industry average of 84.7% profit split
  • −Lack of transparency on key metrics is a significant risk for traders making financial decisions

PROPDNA VERDICT

FundingPips
Higher trust score (78/100). Faster payouts at 2d. 80% profit split.
Nino Options
Lower trust score (0/100). Slower payouts at —d.

RELATED LINKS

FundingPips Full Review →Nino Options Full Review →All Comparisons →
← COMPARE ALL FIRMS ON PROPDNA

Affiliate disclosure: PropDNA may earn a commission if you start a challenge through links on this page. Scores are calculated algorithmically from verified trader reviews — not influenced by commercial relationships.Privacy Policy