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

Pip Traders Funding vs Blue Guardian

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

PTFD

Pip Traders Funding

BLGD

Blue Guardian

PIP TRADERS FUNDING

METRIC

BLUE GUARDIAN

0/100TIE

TRUST SCORE

TIE0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

—

PROFIT SPLIT

90%

—

MAX FUNDING

$400,000

—

MIN COST

—

PAYOUT DAYS

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

PIP TRADERS FUNDING DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

BLUE GUARDIAN DETAILS

STEPS: 3-phase
DRAWDOWN: Trailing EOD
MARKETS: Forex, Futures
PLATFORMS: MT5, Matchtrader, Tradelocker, Tradovate, ProjectX, Volsys, Deepcharts

Pip Traders Funding PROS

+The firm name implies a focus on forex funding, which is the most widely traded market globally.
+A dedicated funding model suggests a structured approach to trader evaluation and capital allocation.
+Pip-based performance naming may indicate a focus on measurable, transparent trading metrics.
+Inclusion on a comparison platform indicates some degree of public presence and accountability.

Pip Traders Funding CONS

−No data has been provided for this firm, making any objective evaluation impossible.
−Without profit split, drawdown, funding levels, or challenge cost data, no industry comparisons can be made.
−Traders cannot make informed decisions without disclosure of core terms and conditions for this firm.

Blue Guardian PROS

+Profit split of 90% exceeds the industry average of 84.7%, favouring the trader
+On-demand payout frequency offers maximum withdrawal flexibility
+Max funding of $400,000 provides substantial capital access for traders
+Offers both Forex and Futures markets, giving traders access to multiple asset classes

Blue Guardian CONS

−Three steps to funded is above the industry average of 1.6, requiring more evaluation stages
−Overall drawdown of 6% is below the industry average of 7.9%, providing less loss tolerance
−No min challenge cost or profit target data is provided for full comparison

PROPDNA VERDICT

Pip Traders Funding

Higher trust score (0/100). Slower payouts at —d.

START WITH PTFD