FundingPips Review (2026)

What is FundingPips?

FundingPips is a proprietary trading firm. It sells evaluations, not brokerage accounts. You pay a one-time fee for a challenge, you hit a profit target inside a defined drawdown limit, and if you pass you are given a “funded” account on which you trade for a share of the profits. Crucially, every account at FundingPips is simulated. The firm does not hold live client trading capital. Its own Terms and Conditions state, in capitals, that none of the services can be considered investment services or constitute investment advice. You are buying access to a skill-assessment product whose payouts are funded by the firm's business, not by profits on live market positions you control.

The reported corporate structure runs through ANKH PROP FZCO (UAE registration 19948) with secondary entities recorded in the Comoros. The founder and CEO is Khaled Ayesh of Amman, Jordan, and in August 2025 the firm appointed Andria Evripidou, a former FCA policy advisor and ex-Revolut executive, as Group Managing Director. Evaluation choices span a 1-Step, a 2-Step Standard, a 2-Step Pro, a “Zero” instant-funded model, and a Prime career path. None of the evaluations carry time limits, which is a real and trader-friendly feature.

Our verdict

FundingPips earns a mid-table-to-upper score: a firm we rate as broadly credible on the single metric that matters most, payouts, but one we cannot recommend without firm caveats on rules and structure. The payout evidence is unusually good for this sector because it is partly independent. The rule set, however, is dense, discretion-heavy, and in places only discovered at payout time, and the firm has an operator track record (its FundingTicks sister brand) that should make any trader cautious about how retroactive rule changes are handled. It is not a regulated broker, and the “licence” it is sometimes associated with is worthless. We score it 7.4 / 10. Buy with open eyes.

We assess FundingPips from its own site and terms, FXEmpire and WikiFX, third-party on-chain payout tracking, trade-press reporting, and aggregated trader sentiment. We have not purchased a challenge or traded an account.

Key features & specs

The table below maps each evaluation by fee, profit target, maximum drawdown, and the headline profit split. The most important column is the drawdown type. Three of the four core models use a static maximum loss, which is the fairer arrangement for a trader, while the “Zero” instant model uses a trailing equity-based drawdown until it locks. Read the table for the cost-and-rules shape of each plan, and pair it with the Pricing and Legitimacy sections below, where the real cost and the real risk live.

Pricing & value

FundingPips is priced competitively. A $100K 2-Step Standard challenge runs $529 one-time, the 2-Step Pro version is $399, the 1-Step is $555, and the Zero instant-funded $100K is $499. Smaller accounts scale down sensibly: a $5K 2-Step is $36, a $10K is $66, a $25K is $156, a $50K is $289. Commissions are $2.50 per round-turn forex lot on the 1-Step and 2-Step Standard, rising to $7 per lot on the Pro and Zero models, and cTrader carries a $20 surcharge. These are in line with or slightly below the typical large prop firm, so on sticker price alone the firm is good value.

The refund picture is where buyers should slow down. Historically, FundingPips refunded the challenge fee only after the fourth successful payout, and only on the 1-Step and 2-Step Standard plans, not on Pro or Zero. There are 2026 reports of a shift toward refunding at the first payout, but we could not resolve which terms currently apply, so we treat the refund trigger as unconfirmed and urge traders to verify it in writing before purchase. On profit split, the structure is genuinely flexible. The Standard plans (1-Step and 2-Step Master are identical here, with no 80-versus-60 split distinction) pay 60% on a weekly Tuesday cycle, 80% bi-weekly, 90% on-demand with a 35% consistency rule attached, and 100% monthly. The 2-Step Pro pays 80%, and Zero pays 95% bi-weekly with a 15% consistency rule on every payout. Scaling can reach up to a 100% split and up to $2 million in capital through the Hot Seat tier.

Legitimacy & payout safety

This is the section that should drive the buying decision, and it cuts both ways. Start with what is reassuring. The payout evidence is better than most of this industry offers. The firm self-reports more than $255 million paid to over 3 million traders, and we treat that as marketing because it is self-reported and unaudited. But there is independent corroboration: blockchain tracking via Payout Junction, sourced from Riseworks on-chain settlement, recorded roughly $180 million across 127,000-plus transactions in January 2026, rising to about $216 million across 171,000-plus transactions by March 2026. The gap between the firm's $255 million claim and the third-party $216 million figure is real, and we do not smooth it over, but the existence of a six-figure-transaction, nine-figure-dollar on-chain trail is a genuine positive that very few competitors can match.

Now the cautions. FundingPips is not a regulated broker anywhere. FXEmpire puts it plainly: “Like many proprietary trading firms, FundingPips operates without formal regulatory oversight.” WikiFX scores it around 1.2 out of 10 and flags it unregulated. The Comoros MISA “licence” sometimes attached to the firm provides no protection whatsoever: the Central Bank of Comoros, in a communiqué dated 15 June 2022, declared the MISA register a fictitious entity without any real existence, and island-body approvals carry no legal effect for financial activities. There is no regulator standing behind your money here, and because the capital is simulated, there is no client-funds protection to invoke if a dispute arises.

On the drawdown definition, FundingPips is mostly on the right side of it, and it states the key terms plainly.

The 1-Step (6%), 2-Step Standard (10%), and 2-Step Pro (6%) all use a static maximum loss, meaning the loss line is fixed at a level you can see from day one and does not chase your profits. The “Zero” instant model is the exception: it uses a 5% trailing, equity-based drawdown. The trailing floor follows your peak equity upward and then locks permanently at the initial balance once the account reaches +5% profit. We note that the “never locks” claim circulating about Zero is wrong; it does lock at +5%. Trailing drawdown is the classic prop trap because the loss line moves up underneath a winning trader, and any trader choosing Zero should understand they are accepting a tighter, moving constraint than the static plans.

Platform-provider and sector risk are real. The underlying broker and liquidity arrangement after the firm's split from BlackBull Markets is not disclosed, which is a transparency gap. The history is instructive: on 14 to 15 February 2024, MetaQuotes forced BlackBull, then FundingPips' grey-label MT5 partner, to terminate the firm over active US clients on MT5, causing a full shutdown that the firm framed to traders as “urgent maintenance” before migrating to Match-Trader within about a week. MT5 returned in March 2025 under the firm's own MetaQuotes licence. More troubling is the FundingTicks episode: the same operator's futures sister brand announced retroactive rule changes in December 2025 that wiped earned profits of already-passed traders, cratering its Trustpilot score, and then announced a wind-down in January 2026. That is the operator's own conduct, and it is the single biggest reason we hold back on trust.

What traders say

The aggregate sentiment is strongly positive. The main Trustpilot profile sits at 4.5 out of 5 across roughly 52,000 to 55,000 reviews as of mid-2026, with about 82% five-star and 8% one-star. We attach two caveats. First, prop-firm review pools are heavily skewed by payout-linked review prompts, so the volume of glowing reviews partly reflects incentivised reviewing at payout time, not unprompted satisfaction. Second, this profile was temporarily suspended by Trustpilot in June 2024 “following an increase in reviews related to recent media attention,” and a separate app.fundingpips.com profile sits at just 2.7 out of 5 across a handful of reviews. Positive community themes are consistent: fast sub-24-hour payouts, responsive support, a clean dashboard, and clear evaluation rules. (Direct Trustpilot pages returned a 403, so these figures are secondary-sourced with a date caveat.)

The negative themes are where prospective buyers should pay attention, and we present them as reported trader allegations rather than adjudicated facts. The most frequent cause of unexpected account termination, per community reports, is enforcement of the risk-per-trade-idea cap, where same-direction positions opened within 10 minutes are aggregated as a single “trade idea.” Traders also report that rules differ between the evaluation and funded stages around news, consistency, and lot caps, that IP or shared-WiFi flagging has triggered closures for alleged copy trading, and that the consistency rule is sometimes discovered only when a payout is requested. A high-profile reported case from April 2026 involved a trader who passed three 2-Step challenges on a merged $300K account with about $18,822 in profit and was terminated mid-trade, with the firm withholding the profit. We cannot adjudicate that dispute, but the pattern of discretionary, conduct-based terminations is the clearest risk in the user record.

Pros & cons

The balance below weighs a strong, partly independent payout record and a mostly static, no-time-limit rule set against the discretion-heavy enforcement, the trailing Zero model, the undisclosed broker, and an operator with a damaging retroactive-rule episode on a sister brand.

FundingPips vs alternatives

Against the better-known names, FundingPips competes well on the two things traders feel most: price and split. Its $529 fee for a $100K 2-Step undercuts or matches most major rivals, and its menu of split-by-cycle options (up to 100% monthly, 90% on-demand) is more generous and more flexible than the flat 80% to 90% many competitors offer. Where a firm like Topstep operates a futures-only model with its own well-documented rule set, FundingPips offers broader asset coverage across forex, metals, indices, and crypto on three platforms. On payout transparency, FundingPips' on-chain Riseworks trail is a genuine differentiator that most peers cannot show.

The trade-off is enforcement and structure. Many large competitors run static drawdowns across all plans and publish a single, stable rule book; FundingPips mixes static and trailing models and carries a denser web of consistency, news, and trade-idea rules that traders repeatedly report discovering late. And the FundingTicks retroactive episode is a sister-brand black mark that the cleanest competitors do not carry. On price and payout speed FundingPips wins; on rule predictability and operator trust, the safest peers edge ahead.

How FundingPips compares to the next tools in our prop firms ranking:

In short: FundingPips leads our prop firms ranking outright, the tools above are its closest challengers.

Who is FundingPips for?

Use FundingPips if…

Use FundingPips if you want a low-cost, no-time-limit evaluation with strong, flexible splits and you value a payout record that is partly verifiable on-chain, and you are disciplined enough to read and respect a strict rule book, especially the risk-per-trade-idea aggregation and the news window. The static-drawdown 2-Step Standard is the most forgiving entry point.

Skip it if…

Skip it if you want the trailing-drawdown convenience of Zero without understanding the lock mechanics, you trade strategies that brush against copy-trading or shared-IP flags, or you require the protection and recourse of a regulated entity. There is none here, and the capital is simulated.

Final verdict

FundingPips is, on the evidence, one of the more credible payers in an industry full of dubious ones, and the on-chain corroboration of roughly $216 million in settlements is the strongest single point in its favour. But credibility on payouts does not erase the structural caveats: an unregulated, simulated-capital model with no client protection, a worthless associated “licence,” a discretion-heavy enforcement record that drives the bulk of trader complaints, a trailing-drawdown instant plan, and an operator whose FundingTicks brand showed it is willing to change rules retroactively. The fee and split are good value; the rules demand discipline; the trust is earned in part and withheld in part. For a careful trader on a static-drawdown plan who reads the rule book closely, it is a reasonable buy. We score it 7.4 out of 10.

Frequently asked questions

More Prop Firms reviews

#27.3/10

Tradeify

Best for disciplined intraday futures traders who want one-time fees and a forgiving eod-trailing drawdown

A genuinely-paying futures prop firm with cheap one-time entry and a friendlier end-of-day trailing drawdown, tempered by strictly non-refundable fees, aggressive enforcement, and self-reported-only payout proof.

From $99 one-timeOffshoreRead review →

#37.2/10

Topstep

Best for disciplined cme-futures traders who want a forgiving end-of-day trailing drawdown

Topstep pairs a fairer end-of-day trailing drawdown and fast payouts with a current cluster of outages, a data breach, and an active lawsuit you should weigh before buying.

From $49/mo CombineOffshoreRead review →

#46.8/10

Take Profit Trader

Best for disciplined intraday futures traders who bank gains and flatten before the close

A cheap, fast-paying futures evaluation whose funded PRO account swaps a forgiving end-of-day drawdown for a punishing intraday trailing one.

From $150/mo TestOffshoreRead review →