Funding Pips scored 60/100 in our review, offering strong platform variety, multiple challenge types, and up to 100% profit splits. While rule clarity and support could improve, it’s a decent option for traders who understand the prop firm’s trading rules.
Funding Pips Summary
Funding Pips scored 60/100 in our testing and review, offering a broad range of challenge types, scaling opportunities, and access to MT5, cTrader, and Match-Trader. The firm appeals to traders looking for flexibility and high profit splits that go up to 100% for consistent performers.
However, key challenges remain. Stricter risk rules, like the 1% and 3% floating loss limits, are only introduced at the funded stage, which can surprise traders who meet evaluation targets but breach after funding. Limited-time challenges often come with unclear or shifting terms, making it harder to plan ahead.
While the prop trading firm has a large community and strong visibility online, you should be aware of ongoing support and transparency concerns. Funding Pips may suit confident, detail-oriented traders, but it’s less ideal if you are seeking a fully predictable trading experience.
Funding Pips scored 6/10 for Challenges in our review with four models available – Instant Funding, One Step, and two Two-Step options (Standard and Pro). However, the score is held back by stricter risk rules introduced only after funding and the ongoing release of limited time challenges with unclear terms.
A key issue is the mismatch between evaluation and funded account rules. Many traders report losing accounts due to 1% and 3% floating loss limits not clearly disclosed during the challenge phase.
Limited time challenges also contribute to confusion, as they often include last-minute rule changes or payout restrictions not explained at purchase. These conditions are typically discovered only after trading has begun.
The four challenge types are:
Given the rule discrepancies and lack of clarity in temporary models, we recommend caution. If you proceed, the One Step or standard Two Step options provide the most consistency.
| Upfront Challenge Fees | Instant Funding | One Step | Two Step (Standard) | Two Step (Pro) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $69 | $59 | $36 | $29 |
| $10,000 | $99 | $99 | $66 | $55 |
| $25,000 | $199 | $199 | $156 | $109 |
| $50,000 | $299 | $299 | $266 | $199 |
| $100,000 | $499 | $499 | $470 | $359 |
This model allows traders to bypass evaluations and start trading with funded accounts.
The appeal of the Instant Funding model is weakened by several rules that are not clearly disclosed. You must first achieve a 3% profit buffer, then generate an additional 1% before you can request a reward split. In practice, this means the actual profit target is 4%.
On top of that, there is a 15% consistency rule and a strict 1% risk limit, neither of which are mentioned in the challenge summary. These hidden conditions reduce the overall appeal of the Instant Funding model and can lead to unexpected breaches once you start trading.
The One Step Challenge simplifies the evaluation process with a single phase.
While straightforward, the hidden fees and unclear terms diminish its potential value. Even though the stated maximum daily loss is 4%, there is a 3% rule in the funded account stage, so if you lose more than 3% on a trade or multiple trades on the same asset, you lose the account.
Funding Pips offers two versions of the Two-Step challenge – the standard model and the Pro model. Both follow the same two-stage structure, but the difficulty and trading rules differ significantly.
FundingPips (Standard)
This option is better suited to intermediate traders who want a structured evaluation with more flexible risk parameters.
FundingPips Pro
Designed for advanced traders, this model comes with tighter risk limits and a higher level of discipline required throughout.
The main differences between these two models are the risk parameters and the enforcement of a consistency rule in the Pro version. ‘
If you’re looking for a more forgiving structure, the standard Two-Step is more suitable. If you prefer tighter rules and are confident in your consistency, the Pro version may offer greater long-term rewards.
Funding Pips’ scaling system offers incremental growth for consistent traders allowing you to build your trading capital and unlock new benefits:
Verdict on Challenges and Funded Accounts
Funding Pips provides a diverse range of challenge models and a strong scaling plan. However, frequent rule changes, unclear conditions in limited time models, and inconsistencies between evaluation and funded phases dropped their score in this area to 6/10.
Funding Pips scored 6/10 for Spreads due to a lack of transparency in its pricing model. While the firm claims to offer raw spreads, it does not publish minimum or average spread data. Instead, it relies on live test credentials, which make it difficult to fairly assess or compare trading costs across firms. This significantly impacted their score during our testing.
Instead of listing minimum or average spreads, Funding Pips provides live test credentials so you can observe real-time spreads for yourself. In our direct correspondence, the firm explained that average spreads can be misleading and may not reflect live conditions accurately. They believe giving traders access to live accounts is a more transparent and realistic method for assessing spreads.
While this argument has merit in theory, it falls short in practice. Checking spreads manually at one point in time is not a practical or standardised way to compare pricing. Top-rated and broker-backed firms publish minimum or average spreads publicly, making it easy for traders to assess costs upfront. Without this level of disclosure, Funding Pips lags behind industry leaders when it comes to pricing transparency.
Funding Pips applies a tiered commission model depending on the challenge type:
While these commission rates are clear, the lack of spread data makes it difficult to estimate the total cost of trading. The firm also states that crypto, indices, and oil trades are commission-free, but without transparent spread data, the true costs remain unclear.
Verdict on Spreads and Commission
Funding Pips offers clearly stated commission rates, but the absence of spread benchmarks limits pricing transparency. Without minimum or average spreads, traders cannot estimate true costs. Compared to top-rated firms that openly publish pricing data, Funding Pips falls short in this area and scored 6/10.
Funding Pips offers a range of tradable instruments with varying leverage across its account types:
Verdict on Markets and Leverage
Funding Pips offers a solid range of instruments, covering all major asset classes except stock markets. Leverage on the Pro account is competitive, especially for forex, providing enough flexibility for skilled traders. However, leverage on metals, crypto, and indices is relatively conservative, which may not suit high-risk or short-term trading strategies.
Funding Pips received a 6/10 for Platforms in our review, despite supporting three trading platforms: cTrader, MetaTrader 5, and Match-Trader. This is largely due to the $20 fee for cTrader access, along with the lack of availability for US traders, limited its score. That said, the recent reintroduction of MT5 is a positive step forward.
Regardless of the platform, Funding Pips enforces strict trading rules:
Verdict on Trading Platforms
Funding Pips offers a strong selection of platforms, including cTrader, MetaTrader 5, and Match-Trader, with the addition of MT5 is a welcome improvement. However, the $20 fee for cTrader and regional restrictions for US traders slightly reduce accessibility and this areas score to 6/10. Traders should also be aware of strict rules in the funded phase, which may limit certain strategies.
Funding Pips scored 6/10 for Payments and Payouts in our testing. Although they offer profit splits up to 100% and supports a wide range of payment methods, its score is reduced by inconsistent payout timelines, lack of fee transparency, and reported delays in receiving funds.
Funding Pips accepts a variety of payment methods for challenge fees, including Google Pay, Apple Pay, cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT), credit and debit cards, Neteller, Skrill, Paysafe Card, and bank transfers. Transaction fees vary by method and financial institution, but specifics are not clearly outlined.
Funding Pips offers payouts ranging from 80% to 100% profit splits, with payout frequency varying between immediate requests and up to 30 days after trading begins. While the profit split percentages are competitive, the lack of clarity on fees and overall costs undermines the appeal.
Verdict on Payments and Payouts
Funding Pips supports multiple payment options and offers high payout percentages, but the process lacks clarity. Without consistent fee disclosures or a defined payout timeline across all models, traders may face delays or confusion, resulting in a score of 6/10 in this area.
Funding Pips provides basic live chat support and a FAQ section, but both fall short when it comes to delivering useful, timely guidance. The overall support experience lacks the responsiveness and transparency expected from a top-tier prop firm.
Live chat is available, but delays in reaching actual support staff are common. In our own interactions, responses to critical questions were often vague or avoided entirely. This lack of direct answers undermines trust and creates unnecessary confusion for traders trying to understand essential rules and processes.
Funding Pips offers limited educational content. While the FAQ and help articles cover basic topics, there are no in-depth guides, trading tutorials, or webinars to help traders develop their skills. By comparison, many competitors offer rich educational libraries and active mentorship communities, giving traders a clearer path to success.
Verdict on Support and Education
While Funding Pips provides live chat and basic help materials, the quality and transparency of support are lacking. Without meaningful educational resources or responsive assistance, the firm does little to support traders beyond the initial signup.
Funding Pips scored 6/10 for Trust in our review. While the firm has a good TrustPilot Score and a massive Discord following, their rating for this area dropped after we assessed recent trader complaints and past disruptions. The temporary suspension of its Trustpilot profile in 2024, combined with recurring reports of slippage, withheld profits, and rule inconsistencies, reflects a disconnect between marketing and user experience.
Funding Pips currently has a 4.4/5 star TrustScore based on 22,000+ reviews, however, Trustpilot temporarily suspended the profile in June 2024 due to an influx of reviews tied to media attention, raising questions about the legitimacy of some ratings. Although the profile was reinstated, recent reviews tell a different story.
There are pages of one star reviews from the past 30 days alone, with complaints highlighting serious issues:
These recent reviews underscore ongoing dissatisfaction, particularly with execution quality and unclear terms.
Funding Pips hosts an impressive Discord community with over 163,700 + members, offering channels for strategy sharing, market insights, and trader networking. Despite its size, the community does not offset the broader concerns highlighted in reviews.
Verdict on Trust and Community
Funding Pips has a large and active community, but trust is undermined by inconsistent rule enforcement, platform disruptions, and mixed trader feedback. A high review score alone isn’t enough to outweigh ongoing issues with execution quality and transparency. For traders who value consistency and reliability, higher-scoring firms offer more assurance.
Funding Pips is one of the most heavily marketed prop firms in the industry, with a strong focus on social media campaigns, paid promotions, and influencer partnerships. This aggressive marketing strategy has helped it achieve high visibility globally, often outpacing competitors in search volume and web traffic, regardless of trader sentiment.
According to Google search data, Funding Pips averages 450,000 monthly branded searches, making it the third most searched prop firm worldwide. Data from Similarweb in March 2025 shows a similar trend, with the firm receiving over 4.4 million global site visits, ranking it as the third most visited prop firm online.
| Country | Q1 2025 Monthly Searches |
|---|---|
| India | 165,000 |
| United States | 18,100 |
| Spain | 14,800 |
| United Kingdom | 14,800 |
| Germany | 12,100 |
| Uzbekistan | 12,100 |
| Pakistan | 9,900 |
| Nigeria | 9,900 |
| Kenya | 9,900 |
| Italy | 8,100 |
| South Africa | 6,600 |
| France | 5,400 |
| Canada | 4,400 |
| Indonesia | 3,600 |
| Netherlands | 2,900 |
| Malaysia | 2,900 |
| Poland | 2,900 |
| Australia | 1,900 |
| Brazil | 1,900 |
| Austria | 1,300 |
| Philippines | 880 |
| Singapore | 880 |
| Cyprus | 480 |
| Hong Kong | 260 |
| Vietnam | 210 |
India
|
165,000
1st
|
United States
|
18,100
2nd
|
Spain
|
14,800
3rd
|
United Kingdom
|
14,800
4th
|
Germany
|
12,100
5th
|
Uzbekistan
|
12,100
6th
|
Pakistan
|
9,900
7th
|
Nigeria
|
9,900
8th
|
Kenya
|
9,900
9th
|
Italy
|
8,100
10th
|
Getting started with Funding Pips is a straightforward process, but it’s important to carefully review the rules for each challenge type. particularly those that apply after you become funded. Several traders have reported discrepancies between the evaluation and funded stages, so understanding these differences upfront is essential.
If transparency and fairness are priorities for you, it’s worth considering other, more upfront, broker backed prop firms like DNA Funded or ThinkCapital.
Funding Pips scored 60/100 overall in our review, with average or below-average ratings across every key category. The prop trading firm’s challenge structure is a relative strength, offering variety and scaling potential. However, this is offset by ever-changing limited time models and stricter risk rules introduced only after traders are funded, contributing to its 5/10 Challenges score.
Spreads transparency scored at 4/10, as the prop firm refuses to publish standard benchmarks and instead relies on live test accounts, an approach that does not align with industry best practices.
The firm also earned 3/10 for Trust due to a history of rule enforcement issues, negative trader reviews, and the temporary suspension of its Trustpilot account. Other categories like Platforms, Payouts, and Markets sit between 4/10 and 6/10, reflecting inconsistent experiences and lack of clear disclosures.
Overall, while Funding Pips has scale and visibility, its operational inconsistencies, hidden conditions, and support issues make it difficult to recommend over more transparent, broker-backed alternatives like DNA Funded or BrightFunded.
Funding Pips received a 60/100 score in our review, making it an average-rated prop firm with both strengths and significant drawbacks. It offers multiple challenge types, scaling potential, and access to MT5, Match-Trader, and cTrader. However, inconsistent rule enforcement, payout clarity issues, and support concerns still affect overall trust. It’s best suited for experienced traders who understand the firm’s risk limits and evolving model terms, while beginner traders may prefer a broker backed prop firm.
The owner of Funding Pips is Khaled Ayesh, based in Dubai. In 2024, the firm faced major disruptions after MetaQuotes cut services due to regulatory issues, and it also lost its partnership with BlackBull Markets. Although Ayesh promised a quick recovery, the events raised ongoing concerns about the firm’s reliability and transparency.
Funding Pips processes payouts based on account type, with some models allowing instant requests and others requiring up to 30 days after trading begins. Processing times vary by payment method: crypto is typically processed within hours, while bank transfers and card payments may take up to 3 business days. However, trader reviews have noted occasional delays, so payout speed may not always be consistent.
Funding Pips launched in 2020 but temporarily shut down in 2024 due to MetaQuotes-related issues. It later resumed operations with alternative platforms. While active for several years, transparency concerns and mixed reviews continue to affect its reputation.
The 10-lot rule limits traders to opening a total of 10 lots per day on Master accounts in select models. If exceeded, all trades are closed and trading is paused until midnight CE(S)T. It’s a soft breach, so the account remains active, but restrictions apply until the next day.
Ask an Expert