FundedNext vs FundingPips
FundedNext
#2 overall
compared with
FundingPips
#3 overall
| Attribute | FundedNext | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| 7.7 | Overall score | 7.7 |
| #2 | Rank | #3 |
| Static | Drawdown | Static |
| 10% | Max drawdown | 8% |
| 5% | Daily drawdown | 4% |
| 8% | Profit target | 8% |
| 2-step | Steps | 2-step |
| 5 | Minimum days | 3 |
| Yes | Consistency rule | No |
| 80% | Split at funding | 90% |
| 14 days | Payout every | 14 days |
| $549 | Fee per $100k | $439 |
| 4 | Companies named | 3 |
| 3 | Platforms | 3 |
The short version
FundedNext takes it overall on 7.7 against 7.7 — four companies in three countries, and the best split is one you pay extra for. FundingPips is the better pick if what you need is the cheaper challenge.
One caution on reading the table: FundingPips refuses our requests, so its rules were never read where they are published. That is scored openly as the evidence component, and the guide explains what it does and does not mean.
Both firms sell access to a simulated account rather than a financial service, so neither holds a licence anywhere — FundedNext contracts from the United Arab Emirates and FundingPips from the United Arab Emirates.