OneUp Trader vs QT Funded

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.

+Minimum challenge cost of $12 is drastically below the industry average of $186.7.
+Days to first payout of 1 day is far faster than the industry average of 6.5 days.
+Fee refund is available, reducing the financial risk of the challenge.
+Profit target of 7% is below the industry average of 8%, making the target easier to hit.

−Profit split of 80% is below the industry average of 84.7%.
−Overall drawdown of 10% is above the industry average of 7.9%, indicating higher risk tolerance required.
−News trading is not allowed, restricting a commonly used trading strategy.

OneUp Trader

Trust score 64/100. Faster payouts at 1d. 90% profit split.

QT Funded

Not yet rated by PropDNA traders. Slower payouts at 14d. 80% profit split.