A side-by-side breakdown of FTMO and FundingPips — profit splits, payout speed, drawdown rules, platforms, and a clear verdict on which firm wins for which trader profile.
Disclosure: We earn a commission if you sign up via links on this page — at no cost to you. Our reviews are independent and not influenced by partners. Learn more.
Editorial verdict · Updated May 2026
FundingPips wins on price and headline split — scaling to a 100% take and undercutting FTMO’s challenge fees materially. FTMO wins on platform breadth, rule simplicity (no minimum trading days), and a payout history that predates the entire FundingPips company. If you’re testing the prop-firm model for the first time, FundingPips lowers the cost of failure; if you’re sizing up to a real income stream, FTMO is the lower-risk home.
Winning value on each row is marked. Ties are flagged. Empty cells mean we don't have that data point yet.
Pick FTMO if you want the most established CFD prop firm in the market, need MT4 or single-stock CFDs, or value zero minimum trading days on the funded phase. FTMO is also the better choice if your edge is event-driven — the rule surface is simpler and the firm has never retroactively tightened drawdown rules on existing funded traders.
Pick FundingPips if you’re cost-conscious, can live with a 5-day minimum trading-day requirement, and want a path to a 100% profit split through their scaling plan. It’s the better firm for testing whether the prop-firm model works for your strategy at all — lower entry cost means a failed challenge stings less.
Every firm pair has a page. Browse the hub or open the full directory.