FTMO vs FundedNext: A Structural Comparison for Serious Traders
A balanced, structure-level comparison of FTMO and FundedNext — evaluation phases, drawdown models, refunds, scaling, and profit splits.
FTMO and FundedNext are two of the most searched names in the funded-trading industry, and they are more alike than different: both are built around a two-step evaluation, both target forex and CFD traders, and both advertise profit splits in the same range. That similarity is exactly why the comparison is worth doing carefully — when headline numbers converge, the decision comes down to structure: how drawdown is measured, how refunds and scaling work, and which platforms you can actually use.
One note before the details. Both firms revise their rules, account models, and pricing frequently. Everything below describes typical structures as they have been commonly offered — treat it as a map of what to compare, not a substitute for reading the current terms on each firm’s official website the day you buy. For the general rule mechanics referenced throughout, see prop firm rules explained.
Who They Are
FTMO is a Czech company, founded in the mid-2010s, and one of the longest-operating firms in the modern evaluation-based prop industry. Its brand is closely tied to a single flagship product: the two-step FTMO Challenge and Verification, followed by a funded FTMO Account. Its longevity and payout history are the core of its reputation.
FundedNext is a younger firm that grew quickly by offering multiple evaluation models — alongside a conventional two-step evaluation it has promoted variations such as express-style and no-time-limit models, and notably marketed paying traders a share of profits earned during evaluation phases. Its brand is built on model variety and aggressive product iteration.
That difference in posture — one mature flagship product versus a rotating menu of models — is the first genuine distinction between them.
Structure, Side by Side
| Dimension | FTMO (typical) | FundedNext (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation format | Two-step: Challenge, then Verification | Two-step evaluation; additional account models have been offered |
| Phase 1 profit target | ~10% | ~8–10% depending on model |
| Phase 2 profit target | ~5% | ~5% |
| Daily loss limit | ~5% | ~5% |
| Maximum drawdown | ~10%, static from initial balance | ~10%, static in the standard model |
| Time limits | No time limit on evaluation phases (a change from earlier 30-day limits) | Varies by model; no-time-limit options promoted |
| Minimum trading days | A small minimum (historically around 4 days) | Varies by model |
| Refund of fee | Typically refunded with the first payout after passing | Typically refunded at an early funded milestone; evaluation-phase profit share promoted in some models |
| Profit split | ~80%, with paths toward ~90% via scaling | ~80–90% depending on model and promotions |
| Scaling | Published scaling plan raising balance on sustained performance | Scaling offered; criteria vary by model |
| Platforms | MT4/MT5, cTrader, and its own/other platforms depending on region | MT4/MT5, cTrader, and additional platforms depending on model and region |
Every cell in this table is the typical shape of the offer, not a quoted term. Both firms adjust targets, splits, and models often enough that any static table — including this one — ages quickly. Verify current rules on each firm’s official site before purchasing.
Drawdown: Similar Headline, Different Fine Print
Both firms have typically used the industry-standard pairing of roughly 5% daily and 10% overall loss limits, measured from the initial balance rather than trailing behind equity highs. That puts both on the friendlier side of the industry’s drawdown spectrum — neither is known for the intraday trailing models common at futures firms.
The comparison, then, lives in the fine print: exactly when the daily limit resets, whether it is measured on balance or equity, and how open positions are treated at the reset time. These details have differed between the firms and have changed within each firm over time. They are also precisely the details that end accounts, as covered in daily loss limits. Read each firm’s current specification page on these two questions before you compare anything else.
Refunds, Payouts, and Scaling
Both firms have typically refunded the evaluation fee once you pass and reach an early milestone on the funded account. FundedNext has differentiated itself by promoting a share of profits earned during the evaluation itself in some models — a genuine structural difference if it applies to the model you choose. On payouts, both advertise splits starting around 80% with paths to 90% through scaling or account tenure, and both operate published scaling plans that raise the account balance on sustained profitable performance. The practical question is not whose headline split is higher in a given promotion, but whose payout process has the longer, steadier record — a judgment where FTMO’s longer operating history is a relevant data point, and where FundedNext’s growth means an expanding but shorter record.
Platforms and Instruments
Both firms cover the standard forex, indices, metals, and crypto CFD universe, with equities availability varying. Platform lineups overlap heavily — MT4/MT5 and cTrader are the common core, with additional platforms varying by firm, model, and region, particularly since MetaTrader access has been region-sensitive in recent years. If your workflow depends on one specific platform, confirm it is available for your account type and country before paying; this single practical check overrides most other comparison points.
Which Should You Choose?
There is no general answer, and be wary of anyone who gives you one. The honest decision procedure looks like this:
- If you weight operating history and a single, stable, well-documented product, FTMO’s longevity is its argument.
- If you weight model flexibility — no-time-limit variants, evaluation-phase profit share — FundedNext’s menu is its argument.
- If your strategy is sensitive to daily-limit mechanics or news rules, the current fine print, not the brand, should decide.
- If a specific platform or instrument is non-negotiable, availability decides for you.
Work through the full framework in how to choose a prop firm, and if FTMO is your direction, the practical preparation is covered in our FTMO challenge guide. After understanding the rules and building a proper trading plan, you may consider attempting a funded challenge with FTMO or another reputable firm.
Key Takeaways
- FTMO and FundedNext share the same skeleton: two-step evaluations with ~8–10% then ~5% targets and roughly 5%/10% loss limits, measured statically rather than trailing.
- The real differences are structural: FTMO offers one mature, stable flagship product with a long payout history; FundedNext offers model variety and evaluation-phase incentives.
- Daily-limit mechanics — reset timing, balance vs equity measurement — are where the fine print differs and where accounts actually end.
- Platform and instrument availability varies by region and account model; confirm your exact setup is supported before paying.
- Both firms change terms frequently. This comparison describes typical structures only — verify current rules on each firm’s official site the day you decide.