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

Quadeye vs 323 Trading

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

QDEY

Quadeye

323T

323 Trading

QUADEYE

METRIC

323 TRADING

40/100—

TRUST SCORE

BETTER43/100

0/5—

RATING

BETTER4/5

—

PROFIT SPLIT

—

MAX FUNDING

—

MIN COST

—

PAYOUT DAYS

—

PASS RATE

—

0—

REVIEW COUNT

BETTER1

QUADEYE DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

323 TRADING DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

Quadeye PROS

+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate

Quadeye CONS

−No trading metrics were provided, preventing any comparison to industry averages
−India-based prop firms may face additional regulatory complexity for international traders
−Absence of data on profit split, funding, drawdown, or payouts limits trader confidence

323 Trading PROS

+Insufficient data provided to identify meaningful advantages for this firm.
+Insufficient data provided to identify meaningful advantages for this firm.
+Insufficient data provided to identify meaningful advantages for this firm.
+Insufficient data provided to identify meaningful advantages for this firm.

323 Trading CONS

−No data was provided for this firm, making meaningful comparison impossible.
−Traders cannot assess key metrics such as profit split, drawdown, or funding levels.
−Lack of data represents a significant transparency concern for prospective traders.

PROPDNA VERDICT

Quadeye

Lower trust score (40/100). Faster payouts at —d.

START WITH QDEY