OneUp Trader vs Funded Futures Network

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

ONEUP TRADER 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

+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.

+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.

−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.

OneUp Trader

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

Funded Futures Network

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