FundingPips vs OneUp Trader

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

FUNDINGPIPS DETAILS

MARKETS: Futures (CME, CBOT, COMEX, NYMEX - equity index, currency, energy, metals, agricultural, interest rate futures)
PLATFORMS: NinjaTrader, R, Trader Pro, Sierra Chart, Bookmap, MultiCharts, Quantower, MotiveWave, Jigsaw Trading, Agena Trader, Volfix, Medved Trader
TYPES: futures, large-cap

+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.

−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.

+Single-step funding process is faster than the industry average of 1.6 steps.
+Minimum challenge cost of $125 is below the industry average of $186.7.
+Profit target of 6% is below the industry average of 7.9%, making evaluation easier to pass.
+Founded in 2017, making it one of the more established prop firms in the industry.

−Days to first payout of 14 is more than double the industry average of 6.5 days.
−Max funding of $250,000 is well below the industry average of $839,272.7.
−Weekend holding is not allowed, restricting trader flexibility over weekends.

FundingPips

Not yet rated by PropDNA traders. Faster payouts at 0d. 80% profit split.

OneUp Trader

Trust score 60/100. Slower payouts at 1d. 90% profit split.