My Forex Funds vs FTMO: Which One is Better for Beginners

My Forex Funds vs FTMO: Compare evaluation rules, fees, and support to choose the right funded account. Aquafunded offers a reliable path for beginners.

Limited personal capital often limits profit potential for many forex traders. Determining what is a funded account is is crucial when comparing platforms such as My Forex Funds and FTMO. Prop firms provide access to substantial capital while managing risk, although differences in evaluation processes, profit splits, and regulatory rules can create challenges. Clear comparisons help traders align their strategies with the right funding solution.

Understanding challenge requirements, payout structures, and scaling opportunities can simplify decision-making. Streamlined funding options enable traders to execute their strategies with confidence. Access to competitive funding not only supports growth but also offers valuable flexibility. Aquafunded offers a funded trading program that streamlines capital access with clear guidelines and effective support.

Summary

  • Proprietary trading firms offering funded accounts grew rapidly between 2020 and 2023, but operational sustainability varied dramatically between providers. FTMO has maintained continuous operations since 2015, processing hundreds of millions in trader payouts across multiple market cycles, while MyForexFunds collapsed in 2023 after rapid expansion, leaving traders without access to their accounts or pending withdrawals. The price difference that appeared to be smart budgeting became a 100% loss when the cheaper option disappeared entirely.
  • FTMO's 10% maximum drawdown and 5% daily loss limits frustrate beginners because they penalize the exploration phase, when traders test adjustments and adapt strategies. Those same restrictions kept the firm solvent during volatility clusters, when hundreds of funded traders simultaneously entered losing streaks. According to ForTraders' comparison analysis, FTMO's 80% profit split, paired with strict risk controls, created operational stability that competitors with looser structures couldn't match when market conditions shifted, or regulators scrutinized their structures.
  • Evaluation difficulty matters less than whether your funding partner is in place long enough for you to become profitable. Traders who started with lower-cost challenges and planned to "move up" later had to restart from zero after firm closures, losing time and confidence, while peers who chose stable providers continued to build track records uninterrupted. The real cost wasn't the fee difference; it was starting over versus maintaining momentum in a system that had survived external pressure.
  • Support availability creates psychological friction that affects trading decisions during critical evaluation phases. MyForexFunds operated customer support only Monday through Friday, leaving weekend traders without assistance when technical issues or rule-clarification questions arose. Response times stretched to hours or days, even during operational hours, meaning problems festered instead of getting resolved quickly. The difference between 24/5 and 24/7 support determines whether help arrives when you actually need it or after the moment has passed.
  • Multiple program tracks with different rule sets appeared to offer flexibility but created confusion about which guidelines applied to specific situations. Traders violated requirements they didn't realize existed because documentation didn't clearly distinguish between program-specific policies and universal rules. Advancement criteria changed based on account size and consistency metrics that weren't transparently defined upfront, making it difficult to plan long-term growth or understand exactly what performance would trigger account increases.
  • AquaFunded's trading program addresses evaluation pressure by removing time limits while maintaining clear risk boundaries, allowing traders to wait for genuine setups rather than forcing trades to meet activity requirements.

What is MyForexFunds and FTMO

Person Working - My Forex Funds vs FTMO

MyForexFunds (MFF) and FTMO are both proprietary trading firms that offer simulated capital to retail traders through evaluation challenges. FTMO was founded in 2015 and is still operational today. It has built a track record of consistent payouts over many market cycles.

On the other hand, MyForexFunds started later and offered aggressive pricing with quick growth, but ultimately collapsed in 2023 following regulatory intervention. This sudden end left traders without access to their accounts or pending withdrawals. If you're looking to explore more sustainable options, consider our funded trading program.

The differences between these two firms went beyond just their business models. They showed the contrast between sustainability and speed, compliance and convenience, and long-term reliability versus short-term affordability.

How did FTMO build its structure over time?

FTMO built its infrastructure slowly. Since 2015, they have processed hundreds of millions in trader profits. They survived extreme volatility events, including the COVID-19 crash and 2022's aggressive rate hikes, while keeping operations running smoothly amid multiple regulatory changes. According to ForTraders' comparison of funded programs, FTMO offers an 80% profit split.

This profit share comes with strict risk controls, including a 10% daily loss limit, which many traders initially found frustrating. The same restrictions that felt limiting are exactly why FTMO traders still have funded accounts today.

What was MyForexFunds' approach?

MyForexFunds took a different path. They grew quickly, attracted many traders quickly, and offered prices 20-40% lower than competitors'. Their 90% profit split seemed really good at first. But growing so fast without the right risk management made them vulnerable. 

When it faced regulatory pressure in 2023, the company failed to adjust. Traders lost everything overnight, including completed challenges, active funded accounts, and pending payouts.

As a result, the lower entry fee resulted in a 100% loss.

How do beginners evaluate prop firms?

Most beginners view prop firms as they would gym memberships, assuming the lowest price is the best choice. However, trading capital is not something you simply buy; providers do not offer the same service at different prices.

A $120 challenge fee with MFF seemed like a good budget choice. But then the firm vanished, and that $120 became worthless, along with the weeks spent passing the evaluation. On the other hand, traders who paid $200 for FTMO's challenge, even though it cost more, continued to be paid every two weeks for years.

Ultimately, good ROI isn't about the entry price; it depends on whether traders actually receive a withdrawal.

What role did fees play in risk management?

FTMO's higher fees funded better risk management, legal compliance teams, and hedging infrastructure. This funding helped protect the firm during tough times.

On the other hand, MFF's lower fees enabled faster expansion but made the operation more vulnerable when market conditions changed or regulators scrutinized its structure.

You weren't paying more for the same thing; you were paying for the firm to keep running when you finally became profitable.

How did rules affect the trading experience?

FTMO's daily loss limits frustrated countless traders. A 10% daily maximum drawdown feels restrictive, especially when a trader is confident in a setup or trying to recover from a losing position.

Many traders specifically chose MFF because their rules felt more flexible and trader-friendly.

These tight controls weren't put in place to annoy traders; instead, they were designed to keep the firm solvent during black swan events and times of significant drawdown. When hundreds of funded traders experience losing streaks simultaneously during major news events, firms with loose risk rules face catastrophic exposure.

FTMO survived because its rules protected the entire system, not just individual accounts.

In contrast, MFF's looser approach gave individual traders greater freedom but created risks for the firm as a whole.

When tested against real market conditions and regulatory scrutiny, one model proved strong while the other did not.

What was the impact on traders after the collapse?

What felt trader-friendly in calm markets turned trader-destructive with the firm's collapse.

Most new traders start with MFF's lower-cost challenges. They planned to move up to FTMO after they gained more experience and capital. This plan made sense: Get funded at a lower cost, demonstrate you can do it well, then upgrade to the premium option.

However, this strategy assumed both firms would remain operational when the traders were ready to grow.

How did traders' experiences differ between the firms?

Traders who began with FTMO, even though they paid more upfront, built momentum within a stable system. They passed evaluations, got payouts, scaled their accounts, and kept trading without breaks. On the other hand, traders who selected MFF first had to start from scratch after the collapse, which meant losing time, confidence, and any money they had invested in challenges.

The actual cost wasn't just the difference in fees; it was having to start over from scratch while watching their peers who chose FTMO continue building their track records without interruption.

What does FTMO's experience tell us about firm sustainability?

FTMO's nine years of continuous operation before MFF even launched are not just a timeline detail; they underscore the importance of infrastructure, legal frameworks, capital reserves, and risk-management sophistication. Companies that can survive different market cycles, regulatory changes, and periods of volatility have systems that new, faster-growing competitors often lack.

MFF's rapid growth looked impressive, with thousands of traders being funded quickly and supported by strong marketing and competitive pricing. However, this fast growth, without the same level of operational maturity, creates hidden weaknesses.

When external pressures arose, such as regulatory scrutiny or market stress, the firm struggled to manage the shock. Traders discovered the hard way that how long a prop firm has been around is a key factor, often more important than how much money it spends on advertising. Our funded trading program provides the stability and maturity to help traders navigate these challenges effectively.

What lessons can be drawn from MyForexFunds' collapse?

Evaluating funding options today reveals a clear lesson from the collapse of MyForexFunds. Cheaper options aren't necessarily better if the firm doesn't last long enough for you to make a profit. Stricter rules shouldn't be viewed as obstacles; rather, they could be crucial to your funding partner's success. Also, aggressive growth is not worth it if it harms sustainability.

Programs like the funded trading program learn from both successful and unsuccessful models. They combine clear rules, refundable fees, and 24-hour payout guarantees with the stability needed for traders to focus on their performance, rather than worry about whether their funding partner will still exist next month. The goal is more than just getting funded; it's about staying funded long enough to create something sustainable.

To understand which firm structure fits your goals, you need to look beyond the visible features to identify what really drives success rates for beginners.

My Forex Funds vs FTMO Comparison: Which One is Better for Beginners

Person Working - My Forex Funds vs FTMO

FTMO is the better choice for beginners who prioritize long-term sustainability, structured learning, and financial protection as they build their skills. MyForexFunds had easier entry conditions and lower upfront costs; however, it collapsed in 2023, eroding the advantage those features offered. 

For traders still learning to be consistent and manage risk, FTMO's refundable fees, comprehensive educational resources, and proven track record provide a foundation that encourages growth rather than just providing access.

Knowing the best timeframe for trading forex as a beginner can also help develop good trading habits. Additionally, our funded trading program is designed to support new traders in their journey to profitability.

This comparison is not just about which firm offers better features; it is primarily about which model helps traders practice long enough to become profitable.

How does the evaluation structure impact beginners?

FTMO requires two consecutive phases: a 10% profit target in the Challenge, followed by a 5% profit target in Verification, with a 5% daily loss limit and a 10% total drawdown cap.

This structure can feel tough for those learning to manage their emotions during losing streaks. The pressure to meet both phases without a reset creates stress that many beginners find overwhelming, especially when they are also trying to show consistency while avoiding drawdown limits.

MyForexFunds has designed its evaluation with slightly lower initial targets, usually 8% in the first phase, and offers a 12% overall drawdown allowance instead of 10%. That extra breathing room is important when traders are still making mistakes with position sizing or holding trades too long.

The longer minimum trading days and more forgiving drawdown structure make the challenge feel more achievable for traders who have not yet developed the discipline to trade within tight limits. Our funded trading program can also provide the structure and support you need to thrive in this environment.

What are the costs of easier evaluation paths?

The easier path sometimes comes with hidden costs for beginners. The loser evaluation structure fails to teach the same risk-management habits as FTMO's stricter framework. As a result, traders who passed MFF's challenge often found it hard later when real market volatility tested their discipline. This is because the evaluation did not force them to develop enough control.

While FTMO's tighter rules may seem harsh at first, they help build muscle memory around risk limits, ultimately protecting traders during sudden market changes. An evaluation that seems harder at first often leads to better traders in the end.

How do fees compare between FTMO and MyForexFunds?

FTMO charges higher challenge fees than MFF did, typically $200 to $600, depending on account size, but refunds the entire amount when you pass both evaluation phases. That refund policy changes the fee from just a cost into a safe learning investment. If you fail, you lose the fee.

If you succeed, you get it back plus access to funded capital. For beginners still learning, that structure reduces financial worry during the learning curve.

According to ForTraders' comparison of funded programs, FTMO offers an 80% profit split once funded. This rate is lower than MyForexFunds' advertised rates, but it comes with the operational stability that truly matters.

MyForexFunds offers prices 20% to 40% lower than FTMO's for most account sizes, making it easier for traders with limited capital. Also, some MyForexFunds programs did not refund challenge fees even after passing, which meant beginners risked losing their entry costs regardless of their performance.

What is the long-term risk of choosing MyForexFunds?

The pricing difference between options can seem big at first glance. A $120 MFF challenge, compared to $200 at FTMO, may appear to be smart budgeting.

But when MFF failed, that $120 led to a 100% loss, along with the time spent on passing evaluations or building a funded track record. On the other hand, traders who paid the higher FTMO fee continued to receive payouts for years. This actually made their refunded challenge fee free, while MFF traders had to start over from scratch.

The real financial risk was not just the fee amount; it was whether the firm would last long enough for traders to recoup it.

What educational resources do FTMO and MyForexFunds offer?

FTMO built a comprehensive learning system with live webinars, trading psychology modules, detailed rule explanations, and case studies of common evaluation mistakes. For beginners who are still trying to understand why their strategies work in demo accounts but not in live trading, structured education helps them learn faster. The resources aren't general trading advice; they're designed for the specific challenges and risk rules traders will face during FTMO evaluations.

On the other hand, MyForexFunds provided basic educational tools and community forums, but nothing compares to FTMO's organized curriculum. While there was some support, it felt more like sharing experiences with other traders than receiving direct advice on developing professional habits.

For learners who could take charge of their own studies and already knew the basics of risk management, that difference might have meant less. However, for beginners who were having a hard time understanding why they repeatedly hit daily loss limits or struggled with emotional control, FTMO's education structure offered real guidance instead of just sharing frustrations with the community.

How does educational support affect trader success rates?

The pattern appears consistently across different types of traders. Beginners who used FTMO's educational resources before trying evaluations had higher pass rates than those who went straight into challenges. The company's psychology guides focused on the emotional pressure of trading with drawdown limits.

They helped traders identify when fear or overconfidence was influencing their decisions rather than a sound strategy. This specific support not only helps pass an evaluation but also builds the mental framework needed to remain profitable once funded.

What innovations are emerging in funded trading programs?

Programs like the funded trading program have learned from both approaches. They combine FTMO's educational depth with more accessible entry requirements and clear rules that do not penalize traders for the firm's risk-management needs.

The 24-hour payout guarantee and refundable fees help ease the financial worries that beginners face. Additionally, 24/7 support provides guidance when traders encounter issues, rather than leaving them to handle challenges independently.

The goal is not just to get traders funded; it’s to equip them with the habits and knowledge to sustain their funding.

How do trading limits influence trader behavior?

FTMO's 5% daily loss limit helps traders stay disciplined, but makes it hard to recover when trades go wrong. This rule encourages traders to take losses quickly rather than holding their positions in hopes of a turnaround.

Although this might seem straightforward, it runs counter to the natural instinct many beginners have to "wait it out." The strict daily limit means that a single bad trade can end an evaluation day immediately, creating pressure to trade perfectly rather than learning to handle imperfect situations.

What are the benefits of flexibility in trading paths?

MyForexFunds offered more flexible program options, including rapid and accelerated tracks that appealed to traders who liked different timing structures. Some programs allowed instant funding without traditional evaluations, creating a sense of freedom compared to FTMO's strict two-phase system. This flexibility allows traders to choose paths that align with their current habits rather than forcing them to adopt a single approach.

However, this flexibility came with a hidden cost. The looser structure did not require traders to develop the discipline needed for long-term success.

Traders who received instant funding without demonstrating consistency often lost their accounts quickly because they had not built the risk-management habits that FTMO's strict evaluation encouraged. The rules that felt restrictive were intended to develop professional discipline, not just test it.

Which evaluation model leads to better trader outcomes?

An evaluation that encourages individuals to change their habits usually yields better results than one that simply accepts the status quo.

FTMO's profit split can reach up to 90% once traders demonstrate consistent performance. This is one of the highest rates in the industry. This split becomes even more important as account sizes grow and monthly profits increase from hundreds to thousands of dollars. The 10% the firm retains helps cover its risk management infrastructure and operating costs, but most of the profits go to traders who can demonstrate their sustainability.

For those interested in funded trading programs, exploring our options can help enhance your trading journey.

What is the impact of operational stability on earnings?

MyForexFunds generally offered 75%-85% profit sharing, depending on the program. This seemed competitive, but the company's weaknesses ultimately hurt any chance of earnings. A slightly lower profit split might have worked if they had remained stable, but when MFF collapsed, the split percentage no longer mattered. Zero percent of zero is still zero.

For beginners looking for a budget-friendly option, MFF's lower fees and easier evaluations seemed like the best choice. The idea was to secure funding at a lower cost, demonstrate consistency, and then move to premium firms like FTMO once skills improved. However, this plan relied on both firms being operational when traders were ready to grow.

Those who started with FTMO, even with the higher costs, gained momentum in a stable system. They passed evaluations and grew their accounts without any breaks. On the other hand, traders who started with MFF had to start over after the collapse, losing both time and confidence as they watched their peers continue to build successful records.

What is the overarching risk of choosing a firm?

The real earning potential is not determined by profit-split percentages; it depends on whether your funding partner remains in place long enough for you to achieve a steady profit.

Even the most carefully planned evaluations and generous profit splits cannot address some operational issues both firms face. Beginners often don't see these challenges until it's too late.

Related Reading

Limitations of MyForexFunds and FTMO

People

Both firms imposed constraints that shaped trader outcomes in various ways. FTMO's strict 10% overall drawdown cap and 5% daily loss limit created a high-pressure environment. In this context, single mistakes could end evaluations quickly. Although this forced traders to develop tight risk discipline, it also contributed to failure rates of around 8-11%.

MyForexFunds offered slightly more breathing room with a 12% drawdown allowance. However, their operational complexity, limited support hours, and short track record introduced vulnerabilities that ultimately proved disastrous when the firm collapsed in 2023.

The limitations extended beyond just rules or pricing structures. They raised questions about whether these constraints truly protected traders or, by design, exposed them to risks they didn't recognize until it was too late.

Are FTMO's strict limits manageable?

The 10% maximum drawdown during evaluation seems manageable until a trader experiences three consecutive losing trades in a volatile session. This limit does not reset daily; instead, it tracks the total losses from the starting balance.

As a result, early mistakes erode the buffer needed later when market conditions improve. The 5% daily limit adds pressure by ending your trading day immediately if you reach it, regardless of whether a recovery setup is in place.

Traders often feel frustrated with these limits because they make it hard to explore and learn. While still working to gain an edge, it is important to have space to test changes, try different timeframes, or adjust when a main strategy isn't working.

FTMO's parameters do not support this critical experimentation phase. A trader must come in with a proven, disciplined method, or risk failing repeatedly while trying to develop one.

Do MyForexFunds' limitations impact traders?

According to ForTraders' comparison analysis, FTMO offers existing customers 15% off, helping reduce recurring costs. However, this discount does not change the basic pressure of working within limits that leave almost no room for the mistakes beginners usually make.

The strict controls protect FTMO's risk exposure, but they also create an evaluation environment in which developing traders have a tougher time than they would under slightly more flexible rules.

The rules that keep the firm stable also lead to low pass rates for traders.

What are the asset trading limitations?

FTMO primarily focuses on forex pairs and major indices, with limited access to individual stocks and futures contracts compared with other platforms. For traders who rely on stock volatility or commodity trends, this limitation undermines their best chances of success. You can't trade what you know best if the platform doesn't offer it.

This smaller selection of assets forces strategy adaptation. If your winning strategy involves trading tech stocks during earnings season or crude oil around inventory reports, you'll have to change your whole approach to focus on currency pairs and indices. While this isn't impossible, it can add months to your learning curve as you learn how different markets behave and which setups really work in forex compared to stocks.

This limitation is less important for traders focused solely on forex, but it creates a significant barrier for anyone seeking to apply skills learned in other markets. You're not just showing that you can trade profitably; you're also proving that you can trade profitably in a specific group of instruments that might not match your existing strengths.

What is FTMO's promotional structure?

FTMO doesn't offer any promotional incentives, welcome bonuses, or discounts for first attempts. The value proposition focuses completely on evaluation quality and operational reliability, which are important in the long run, but may seem expensive at first. When you compare a $200 FTMO challenge with a $120 competitor that offers a 20% new customer discount, the difference in price looks significant, especially if you plan to take several evaluations before passing.

This lack of promotional offers means that every attempt costs the full price. If someone fails three challenges before passing, they will have spent $600 without receiving anything in return.

Competitors that offer discounted retakes or bonus programs can lower the total cost. This method makes the journey to funding feel easier, even if their long-term reliability might be uncertain.

The lack of incentives shows that FTMO is confident in its model. It doesn't need promotional draws because its retention and payout consistency prove its worth.

However, this confidence doesn't help beginners who need multiple attempts to develop the discipline required by FTMO's rules. Beginners often feel the weight of every failed challenge more acutely than experienced traders with larger capital reserves.

How does support impact traders?

MyForexFunds offered customer support only Monday to Friday, leaving traders without support on weekends when many part-time traders were active. If you had technical problems, questions about rules, or account issues on Saturday morning, you had to wait until Monday for answers. This delay created anxiety during evaluations because every trading day mattered, and not having answers could hurt your strategy.

The long support queue exacerbated the problem. Even when support was available, response times could range from hours to days, depending on inquiry volume. Traders reported submitting tickets regarding payout delays, confusing challenge rules, or platform errors, but often received generic responses that didn’t address their specific cases.

The lack of real-time support meant problems worsened rather than being resolved quickly, creating uncertainty that affected trading psychology during key evaluation periods.

Programs like the funded trading program addressed this operational weakness by offering 24/7 support that aligns with traders' needs. Weekend trading sessions, late-night market swings, and different time zones do not stop for business hours.

When managing a funded account or working through an evaluation, having quick support available reduces the worry of whether technical issues or rule questions will disrupt your progress.

The difference between 24/5 and 24/7 support is not just about convenience. It’s about whether help comes when it’s needed or after the crucial moment has passed.

What are the complexities in MyForexFunds' programs?

MyForexFunds offered several program tracks (Rapid, Accelerated, Evaluation) with different rules, profit targets, and scaling paths. This variety seemed to offer flexibility, but instead created confusion about which rules applied to each program.

Traders often broke guidelines they didn't know about because the documentation didn't clearly explain the specific requirements for each program and the universal policies. The scaling program added more complexity. The criteria for advancement were based on account size, trading volume, and consistency metrics, none of which were clearly defined at the outset.

Traders often believed they had reached scaling milestones but later discovered additional requirements they were unaware of, leading to frustration and distrust. This lack of clear, simple paths for progress made it difficult to plan for long-term growth or to understand which performance would drive account growth.

This complexity was not by chance. The many program options let MFF appeal to different trader preferences. However, managing different rule sets across thousands of accounts created inconsistencies in how rules were enforced and communicated. What worked for one trader in one program did not necessarily apply to another, and support teams couldn't always explain the differences quickly.

While being simpler doesn’t always mean being better, having clarity about rules and advancement criteria in prop firm evaluations helps lessen psychological pressure.

When trading under drawdown limits, uncertainty about whether to follow the right guidelines adds extra mental load, which can degrade decision quality.

How does firm longevity affect reliability?

MyForexFunds launched in 2020, giving them roughly three years of operational history before their collapse. That short time meant they hadn't gone through different market cycles, regulatory changes, or the kind of stress tests that show whether a firm's systems can handle ongoing pressure. Newer companies often grow quickly when times are good, but they lack the experience and systems to adjust when external factors change.

The short track record also led to fewer examples of how consistently they paid out, how they enforced rules, and how the firm handled trader disagreements or unusual situations. In comparison, FTMO's nine years of operation have provided thousands of trader experiences, public reviews, and documented responses to various market events. That history doesn't guarantee future success, but it demonstrates operational strength that newer competitors haven't yet demonstrated.

Traders who prioritized affordability and ease of evaluation often overlooked the importance of operational maturity when choosing a firm. The firm's age seemed less important than immediate benefits like lower fees or flexible rules. However, when MFF collapsed, that short history became the warning sign everyone had missed. The firm hadn't developed the legal structures, capital reserves, or risk management skills needed to handle regulatory scrutiny or market stress.

Longevity isn't just about bragging rights. It's also about if a firm has faced and survived the challenges that test every financial operation.

Related Reading

9 Best Alternatives to MyForexFunds and FTMO

Man Working - My Forex Funds vs FTMO

Nine prop firms have emerged as good alternatives for beginners who were hurt by FTMO's strict rules or left in a tough spot by MyForexFunds' collapse. These firms balance structure with accessibility, offering ways to get funding that don't require perfect execution under a lot of pressure. They have the stability that MyForexFunds couldn't provide. The right choice depends less on which firm shows the highest profit split and more on which evaluation structure fits your trading style when mistakes happen.

1. Aqua Funded (Best for beginners who fail FTMO & MFF due to rule pressure)

Beginners often reach FTMO's daily loss limits not because their strategies are poor, but because time pressure leads them to make quick decisions before setups are ready. They notice a good pattern forming and jump in early to avoid missing out, only to see the trade reverse just enough to hit their stop loss.

If this happens twice in a single session, they may exceed half their daily limit before lunch. While MyForexFunds seemed easier because of its more relaxed structure, which didn't penalize experimentation as much, this flexibility masked firm-level problems that eventually wiped out everyone's accounts.

Aquafunded removes the clock but retains the structure. No time limits allow traders to wait for real setups rather than forcing trades to meet minimum trading-day requirements.

Profit targets range from 2% to 10%, depending on the program, and are more realistic than FTMO's 10% challenge phase for traders still building consistency. The drawdown logic uses balance-based calculations, which are clearer than equity-based systems, where floating losses can surprise you.

The instant funding option is more important than it might first appear. If traders have already demonstrated they can follow risk rules in live trading, they can skip evaluations entirely and start earning immediately.

This path works especially well with conservative strategies that risk 0.25% to 1% per trade, as consistent small gains compound over weeks rather than relying on big moves within days.

The trade-off is that AquaFunded has lower brand recognition than FTMO. This results in fewer third-party reviews and less community discussion of special cases. Also, the analytics tools do not match the depth of FTMO's.

The structure continues to enforce rules, so those who hoped MFF's loose approach would carry over will find that it does not. However, for beginners who understand why they keep failing at FTMO's daily limits and are cautious about firms that prioritize flexibility over sustainability, AquaFunded's model addresses the specific problems that often hinder evaluation attempts.

2. The Funded Trader (Best for beginners who want flexibility without MFF-style looseness)

FTMO's single evaluation path works well for traders whose strategies fit its rules. It does not, however, work well for those who do not usually adapt or who experience repeated failure.

MyForexFunds offers a variety, but often suffers from operational chaos due to managing too many program types with insufficient infrastructure. In contrast, The Funded Trader offers multiple options: Standard, Rapid, and Royal challenges, with consistent enforcement and transparent documentation across all tracks.

The 90% profit split is better than FTMO's standard rate, but it only helps if you are funded and remain funded. According to Rebels Funding's prop firm comparison, drawdown calculations are a bit more forgiving than FTMO's strict 10% limit. This gives beginners a little more time to recover from mistakes without being disqualified immediately. The Trustpilot rating of about 4.7 indicates a level of consistency MFF did not demonstrate.

The Rapid challenge option creates the same emotional pressure as FTMO's time limits, but does so differently. Beginners drawn to faster paths often overtrade, conflating speed with efficiency. 

The gamified interface makes it feel like they are unlocking achievements, which can encourage some traders, but it might also lead others to take trades they would usually avoid. For traders whose biggest issue is discipline, not ability, this psychological aspect is more important than the differences in the rules.

This approach is best for beginners who understand that they need options. They learned from MFF's collapse that flexibility without operational maturity carries significant risks.

3. SurgeTrader (Best for beginners who want instant funding without MFF-style uncertainty)

FTMO's two-phase evaluation is important because showing consistency just once isn't enough. The verification phase checks if the challenge performance was due to skill or luck. This setup makes sense for risk management because it requires greater psychological endurance and adds weeks to the funding timeline. MyForexFunds advertised instant access as a competitive advantage, but showed that speed without proper vetting puts everyone in the system at risk.

SurgeTrader offers immediate funding to traders who demonstrate risk control without multi-phase testing. Traders must demonstrate understanding of position sizing, respect stop losses, and avoid revenge trading before they can begin managing capital. 

The rules are clear: news trading and overnight holds are allowed; the rules are published openly; and support answers questions quickly. This clarity is very important, especially for beginners whose previous firms may have disappeared during payout cycles. For those looking to explore a sustainable approach to trading, our funded trading program provides the resources and support you need to succeed.

The higher upfront cost reflects the risk SurgeTrader assumes by not using traditional evaluations. Traders pay for immediate access and the firm's belief that it can find disciplined traders without long testing.

However, the amount they can grow their accounts is limited relative to FTMO, as instant funding models can't support the same account growth as traders who complete evaluations.

The 80% profit split is lower than competitors' 90%-95% splits. This difference only matters after a trader starts making consistent profits, which many beginners have not yet achieved.

4. TopStep Trader (Best for beginners in futures, not forex)

FTMO and MyForexFunds focus on forex because currency pairs provide the liquidity and volatility that retail traders need. However, forex strategies do not work the same way in futures markets.

In futures markets, contract specifications, margin requirements, and market hours shape distinct trading dynamics. TopStep has created its entire model around futures-specific education.

They teach beginners how index contracts, commodities, and interest rate futures actually move, rather than assuming that forex discipline automatically applies to futures.

The structured evaluations are designed to build trading habits rather than just test them. Coaching sessions focus on specific challenges in futures trading, such as managing overnight risk in 24-hour markets and navigating low-liquidity periods between sessions.

Webinars cover key topics, including contract rollovers, spread trading, and how seasonal patterns affect commodity futures. This level of education significantly reduces learning time for beginners, who might otherwise spend months trying to understand why their forex strategies fail in ES or CL contracts.

The scaling path moves more slowly than that of forex-focused firms because futures volatility requires more careful position sizing. The rules remain strict because futures leverage amplifies both gains and losses more than trading currency pairs. 

For beginners interested in futures trading, TopStep's model covers market structure and risk management; it does not expect traders to understand the details of futures while also demonstrating consistency.

5. BluFX (Best for beginners who hate evaluations and distrust MFF-style firms)

Evaluation challenges test your discipline and how well you can perform under artificial pressure that isn’t usual in regular trading. Some beginners fail FTMO multiple times, not because they can't trade profitably, but because the evaluation environment creates anxiety that disrupts their decision-making. On the other hand, MyForexFunds felt easier; their more flexible structure helped lower that pressure. Sadly, the firm's instability created worse psychological stress when accounts disappeared.

BluFX simplifies the funding process by eliminating evaluations through its subscription model. Traders pay monthly fees to access capital, rather than proving their consistency by completing timed challenges. This approach helps traders with strong technical skills who struggle to perform well under pressure from evaluation outcomes.

Automated trading systems and expert advisors (EAs) are allowed, so there is no need to manually execute every position. Additionally, the low entry barrier allows traders to assess whether prop firm trading suits them without incurring significant evaluation fees.

The monthly subscription model results in net profits declining by the fee amount each month, regardless of performance. This ongoing cost accumulates over time and can exceed the cost of a single evaluation challenge. 

Also, the highest funding limits are usually lower than those given by evaluation-based companies, because subscription models can't increase account sizes as quickly. As a result, growth is slower, as the firm needs consistent profit data before it will allocate more capital to management.

This approach is best for beginners who have failed multiple evaluations, even though they have profitable demo track records. This suggests that the way evaluations are set up may be the problem.

6. The Forex Funder (Best for confident beginners wanting high profit splits)

Most beginners prioritize passing evaluations over maximizing profit splits. Securing funding is more important than improving payout percentages they have not yet earned.

However, for traders who have already demonstrated consistency in demo trading or smaller live accounts, the 95% profit split becomes very important. That extra 10% to 15% compared to standard firms adds up quickly once monthly profits exceed four figures.

The Forex Funder's structure assumes traders come with a solid strategy rather than relying on the evaluation to create one. Without time limits, traders are not pressured to trade frequently. However, the higher entry cost shows the firm's trust in its screening process.

Beginners might find equity-based drawdowns surprising, especially if they do not monitor floating losses closely. A position that is temporarily negative counts against the drawdown even before it is closed, which can feel harsh for those used to balance-based calculations that only show realized losses.

Choosing between one-step and two-step evaluations allows traders to select a testing approach that aligns with their confidence level. Single-phase challenges cost more, but help traders get funded faster if they are confident in their consistency.

On the other hand, two-phase evaluations are cheaper up front but require proving performance twice. Demo-only accounts may not reflect real execution dynamics, which is less important for strategy testing but vital for understanding how slippage and requotes can affect actual results.

7. FundedNext (Best for beginners who want flexibility but can study rules)

MyForexFunds attracted beginners by making everything feel accessible; however, it ultimately collapsed because that accessibility lacked a sustainable infrastructure.

FundedNext offers similar flexibility, with no time limits, balance-based drawdown, and 95% profit splits, but pairs it with detailed rule documentation and consistent enforcement.

The difference between flexibility and recklessness depends on whether the firm's operational systems can manage the complexity created by its program options.

Balance-based drawdown calculations are easier for beginners to understand since you only lose the buffer when trades close, rather than when they are floating in negative territory. This method reduces stress by preventing unrealized losses from eroding the drawdown allowance before deciding whether to hold or exit.

Additionally, the 24-hour payout promise addresses the trust issues MFF created by delaying withdrawals for weeks. Quick access to earnings becomes even more important after seeing another firm's payout system fail.

What are the complexities in prop firm programs?

The complexity arises from having different program models, each with its own requirements. Beginners who quickly skim the documentation often assume the rules are the same across all tracks. This can lead to unintentional violations of program-specific guidelines.

Also, the shorter operational history means there are fewer years of data on how the firm deals with edge cases, disputes, or stressful market events. Because demo trading is used, there is no way to verify whether their execution matches live market conditions.

Beginners must be willing to read every rule document carefully and verify that they understand program-specific requirements before starting challenges.

8. E8 Markets (Best for conservative beginners)

Aggressive profit targets may seem attractive, but they also raise the chances of failure for beginners. Those whose strategies focus on steady profits rather than big gains often face challenges. For example, FTMO's 10% challenge phase appears manageable until you realize it's a 10% gain in 30 days while adhering to 5% daily limits and a 10% total drawdown.

One bad week can take away your time and margin for error. MyForexFunds' slightly lower targets felt more realistic; however, the company's failure showed that the challenges weren't its biggest issue.

E8 Markets sets conservative targets at 8% for phase one and 4% for phase two. These targets match what disciplined beginners can realistically achieve without feeling pressured to force trades. The low entry fee also reduces financial risk during the learning phase, allowing traders to see if prop firm trading fits their style.

Without time limits, strategies can develop naturally rather than rushing through setups to meet minimum trading-day requirements. Additionally, custom evaluation options enable traders to adjust settings to match their risk tolerance.

The 80% profit split is lower than competitors' offering 90% or 95%. However, this difference is more important once a trader becomes consistently profitable.

Tight drawdown rules limit recovery strategies when trades go against you, requiring immediate acceptance of losses instead of managing positions. Furthermore, the firm's newer status means there is less community feedback and fewer documented cases of how it handles unusual situations.

Beginners should focus on capital preservation rather than chasing high returns quickly. It's often better to proceed through evaluations slowly than to experience rapid failures.

9. Funded Trading Plus (Best for beginners who want structured choice)

FTMO's strict setup is well-suited for traders who match its model. On the other hand, MyForexFunds is flexible and can attract more people at first, but may also lead to problems at the firm level.

Funded Trading Plus has different paths for progress: Evaluation, Advanced, and Instant, while keeping the same operational standards for all programs. This structure helps beginners choose a testing format that matches their current skill level, ensuring they benefit from the safety of clear rules.

Weekly payouts help reduce the stress of waiting for monthly payments. This is especially helpful for beginners who need to verify that the system is working as expected.

The way to 100% profit share encourages traders to be consistent over a long time rather than focus on short-term gains. Since there are no minimum trading days, traders don't have to trade just to meet activity requirements. This approach helps reduce overtrading, which can often undermine their evaluation efforts.

High profit targets in some programs create pressure similar to FTMO's structure. Beginners who are attracted to these aggressive goals often fail repeatedly before realizing they need to take a more careful approach first. A leverage limit of 30:1 restricts position sizes for traders accustomed to higher ratios.

However, this limit is helpful because it protects beginners from the dangers of overleveraging, which can quickly drain their accounts. Also, demo-only accounts mean that traders never face real execution conditions.

What lessons can traders learn from the market?

Programs like the funded trading program have learned from both FTMO's strictness and MyForexFunds' problems. They created evaluation structures that encourage discipline without punishing exploration. The 24-hour payout guarantee with a $1,000 minimum helps address trust issues caused by MyForexFunds, while refundable fees help ease financial stress during multiple attempts. With transparent rules, traders know exactly what they can do before risking their money.

Plus, 24/7 support makes sure help is available when it’s needed most, not just during work hours. The aim isn’t to make evaluations easier; it’s to make them manageable for traders who are still developing the habits that lead to long-term profitability.

Knowing which firms are available is important, but it matters only if traders understand which evaluation framework fits their trading style, especially when things go wrong.

When FTMO Is Too Strict, and MFF Is No Longer an Option, Beginners Need a Safer Path

If you keep hitting FTMO's daily drawdown limits despite a profitable strategy, the issue isn't your edge. It's the pressure from the evaluation that makes you rush decisions before setups have a chance to develop fully. MyForexFunds felt more accommodating because their structure didn’t harshly penalize exploration. However, that flexibility hid operational weaknesses that eventually led to big losses.

For beginners who keep failing FTMO due to rule violations and now feel uncertain after MFF's shutdown, the real challenge isn't just improving their strategy. It's about finding an evaluation model that assesses consistency without requiring perfection under time pressure.

The same pattern appears in many failed attempts. You create a strategy that performs well in demo accounts, delivering steady 3%-5% monthly returns with controlled drawdowns. But once you start FTMO's challenge, that same strategy suddenly hits daily loss limits because the evaluation pressure shortens your decision-making time. You enter trades sooner than usual, worried you'll miss setups that are needed to reach profit targets.

You also hold on to losing positions longer, hoping they will turn around before creating a loss that eats into your daily buffer. The strategy didn’t change; the psychological environment did.

Programs like the funded trading program address these failures by removing time limits while maintaining clear risk boundaries. Without minimum trading days, traders can wait for real setups instead of forcing trades to meet activity requirements. Profit targets between 2% and 10% are realistic for disciplined beginners who avoid rushing.

The simpler drawdown rules use balance-based calculations that count only closed losses, reducing the stress of watching floating positions erode your buffer before you make exit decisions. The evaluation still tests discipline, but does not require the patience needed for long-term profitability.

FTMO's structure works for traders who come with proven strategies and emotional control. However, most beginners need evaluations that help develop those habits instead of just testing them.

The difference between a challenging evaluation and an impossible one lies in whether the rules encourage discipline or merely signal its absence. Failing three FTMO attempts due to daily drawdown breaches doesn’t mean you can’t trade profitably; it shows how this evaluation format triggers psychological reactions that interrupt your normal decision-making.

The collapse of MyForexFunds has removed the flexibility many beginners relied on. Trying to recreate that relaxed structure elsewhere misses the point completely. MFF's accessibility often came at the cost of operational stability.

What beginners really need isn't easier rules; it's evaluation systems that assess real trading skills without adding unnecessary pressure unrelated to market profitability. Instant funding options skip evaluations altogether for traders who can show risk control through prior records, reducing the performance anxiety that disrupts consistent execution.

Instead of dealing with FTMO's strict parameters or with firms that might not survive their next regulatory review, beginners need ways to secure funding that align with how profitable trading truly grows. Consistency is built through practice across varied market conditions, rather than perfect execution within tight timelines. Evaluations should confirm understanding of position sizing, adherence to stop-losses, and avoidance of revenge trading.

Any additional struggle might help the firm’s risk management, but ultimately slows the trader’s psychological growth. The funded trading program offers a great alternative.

Related Reading

‍

February 10, 2026
Your Journey Starts Here
Make Waves In Trading
Join Our Discord Community

Want to trade with our Capital and get a 95% Profit Split?

Get startedHow it works