A forex pair, a gold position and a US index trade can all sit inside a CFD prop account, but they do not create the same trading conditions. Contracts for difference track price movements without giving the trader ownership of the underlying asset. In a simulated prop programme, the account records those trades under the firm’s rules, and any reward depends on the agreement governing that programme.
This category focuses on programmes offering CFD instruments, with comparisons built around symbol coverage, trading costs and the way open positions affect loss limits. A firm offering exchange-traded futures belongs in the futures comparison for that product, even if it also sells a separate CFD challenge.
Start with the instruments you actually trade. An attractive forex spread says little about the cost of holding gold overnight or trading an index around its cash-market open. The useful question is whether your normal position size, holding period and execution style fit the specific CFD account, including the rules that apply after you pass.
4PropTrader has two features that genuinely stand out: a high 95% split with 100% of your first $8,000, and a futures drawdown that stops trailing at your starting balance instead of chasing you forever. The caveats matter: the accounts are simulated despite the funded-capital language, the funded daily-loss leash is tight at 50% of the drawdown limit, and the fee model is contradictory between the FAQ and the Terms. Resolve the fee terms in writing before paying.
OVERALL SCORE
7.4
PROS:
High 95% split, and you keep 100% of your first $8,000 in payouts
Pro Drawdown EOD trails up then freezes static at your starting balance
AIFO sells four programmes on MetaTrader 5, from instant funding to a 24-hour Sprint, and its 2-Step is one of the cheaper entries on the market at 79 dollars for a 10,000 dollar account. Drawdown is static on three of the four, there is no time limit on the main programmes, and news trading and weekend holding are both allowed outside a 5-minute blackout around high-impact releases. The catch is disclosure and the cost of the upside. AIFO would not give us a single payout figure and publishes no payout log, there is no fee rebate on any standard programme, and the 95 percent headline is a scaling ceiling rather than a starting point, with Instant starting at 70 percent and a 90 percent split also sold as a paid add-on.
OVERALL SCORE
7.5
PROS:
Four genuinely different programmes, from instant funding to a 24-hour Sprint
Cheap entry: 79 dollars for a 10,000 dollar 2-Step account
10 percent off a second account and 15 percent off a third, applied at checkout
No time limit on Instant, 1-Step or 2-Step
News trading and weekend holding both allowed, outside a 5-minute news blackout
Static drawdown on three of the four programmes
No consistency rule on the 1-Step or 2-Step, and elsewhere a breach only delays a payout
Scaling to 2,000,000 dollars in simulated capital
CONS:
No payout data disclosed at all, and no public payout log
No fee rebate on any standard programme, and no refund on a failed challenge
The 95 percent headline is a scaling ceiling; Instant starts at 70 percent
A 90 percent split is also sold as a paid add-on at 20 percent of the fee
Unregulated, founded 2025, contracting through Hong Kong and Anjouan entities
No swap-free accounts as a standard option
A 10,000 dollar cap on a single payout request, with the excess deferred
21 days of inactivity freezes the account and 30 days closes it permanently
Alpha Trader Firm is a legitimately US-registered, transparently-disclosed simulated firm with a broad product range and modern platforms. For a trader with tight per-trade risk and frequent small profits, its rules are passable and its 90% funded split is competitive. But it is demanding and add-on-gated, and the marketing oversells it: the per-trade floating-loss cap can end an account on a single temporary drawdown, the profitable-days rule punishes patient styles, and the 100% split is really 90% (less for fast payouts).
OVERALL SCORE
7.2
PROS:
Legitimately US-registered with an unusually clear simulated-account disclosure
Broad product range (1-step, 2-step, instant, pay-later) and modern platforms
90% default funded split is competitive
One-time fee, no monthly subscription
Payouts via RISE with the firm covering fees
CONS:
Per-trade floating-loss cap auto-closes the account, even on a temporary drawdown
Mandatory profitable days (7 or 10 per 30) penalise patient or low-frequency styles
100% split is really 90%, and faster payouts lower it (~80% / ~70%)
Alpine Funded GmbH is Swiss-registered (CHE-159.158.124) but unregulated, and its accounts are simulated - which its Terms state plainly. There is a lot to like: The Peak's 90% split is EARNED through scaling rather than sold, the challenge period is unlimited, the fee is refundable with your third payout, and there is no consistency rule on either main line. The Alpine Pass is a genuinely novel idea where a mistake costs you a payout tier rather than your account. What gives pause is the distance between the sales pages and the contract: clause 9.2 states Alpine Funded IS NOT THE FUNDING PROVIDER - an unnamed third party decides whether you are funded and paid - while the homepage advertises instant funding and guaranteed payouts. Base Camp's "up to 100% split" is really a fixed dollar cap worth about 20% at Level 1.
Overall
7.4
PROS:
The Peak's 90% split is earned through the scaling plan, not sold as a paid add-on
Swiss-registered entity - a step up from the offshore shells common in this sector
Unlimited challenge period; Peak fee refundable with your third payout
No consistency rule on Base Camp or Peak
The Terms say "simulated" plainly, and so does the homepage CTA
Base Camp payout tables are published in unusually concrete dollar detail
The Alpine Pass model has no hard breaches - a mistake demotes your payout tier rather than closing the account
CONS:
The binding Terms state Alpine Funded is NOT the funding provider - an unnamed third party has complete discretion over funding and payouts, and Alpine disclaims liability
Base Camp's advertised "up to 100% profit split" is a fixed dollar cap - roughly 20% effective at Level 1
The news rule is a hard breach even if triggered automatically - a stop-loss filling in the window can end the account
Peak's payout cap destroys profit above 10% of balance or $10,000, whichever is lower
Base Camp withholds your first two payouts until the third, unless you buy the On-Demand add-on
AquaFunded offers CFD evaluations and Instant models on simulated capital. Rules differ materially by model and purchase date: the new Instant Standard has a 1% floating-loss strike system, while Instant Flex and Pay After Pass use a 1% hard breach. Static options include One Step Flex as well as Two Step Standard/Elite and Three Step. The standard share is 90%, but processing fees, risk penalties, consistency gates and reward caps affect withdrawals. The evaluation fee refund requires four successful payouts.
OVERALL SCORE
7.7
PROS:
90% standard profit share
Multiple CFD model choices
Static maximum drawdown available on four listed models
No evaluation completion deadline, subject to activity rules
MT5, cTrader, MatchTrader and TradeLocker
Published scaling pathway subject to approval
CONS:
Floating-loss limits can cut reward shares or breach an account
Consistency and profitable-day gates vary by model and purchase date
3% payout processing fee
Initial payout caps on $100K+ accounts; Instant Flex recurring cap
Evaluation refund requires the fourth successful payout
Some general help wording differs from product-specific rules
Atlas Funded (Atlas Funded Ltd, Saint Lucia; Dubai parent) is a competent, feature-rich forex/CFD firm with genuine strengths: a static drawdown on most models, no activation or monthly fee, a fee refund on your fourth reward, news and weekend trading and EAs all allowed, and clear worked examples of its drawdown maths. The things to price in: the "100%" split is a PAID add-on (+20% of the fee) over an 80% base; the funded stage is TIGHTER than the challenge - a 0.5%-profit-per-day qualifying rule, a 3-minute minimum hold, and on the Pay-After-You-Pass model a drawdown that shrinks at funding (10%->6%, 5%->3%); and the accounts are simulated with two offshore entities behind them. Trustpilot sits around 4 stars on ~600 reviews, but Trustpilot flags removed fake reviews and the on-site testimonial wall repeats identical payout text.
Overall
7.4
PROS:
Static drawdown on most models - fixed from your starting balance, not trailing
No activation fee and no monthly fee - genuinely one-time
Challenge fee refunded on your fourth reward
News trading, weekend holding and EAs all allowed
Clear, worked drawdown and daily-loss maths with midnight-UTC reset
EU-adjacent transparency: two named entities and a merchant of record disclosed
CONS:
The advertised "100%" split is a paid add-on (+20% of the fee) over an 80% base
The funded stage is harder than the challenge: a 0.5%-profit-per-day qualifying-day rule and a 3-minute minimum hold
On Pay-After-You-Pass, the drawdown tightens the moment you go funded (10%->6% overall, 5%->3% daily)
Payouts are Rise or crypto only - no bank wire or PayPal
Simulated prop firm trading since 2012, one of the longest records in the category. Three programmes on MT5 and DXTrade, $5,000 to $200,000. Contracting entity AudaCity Global LTD, licensed in the Union of Comoros.
The loosest rules on this site: the two-step allows 7.5% daily loss and 15% maximum in phase 1, static and measured on initial balance. No time limit on any evaluation.
News trading, weekend holding, expert advisors and copy trading all permitted on every programme.
Avoid FTP: instant funding costs $1,299 at $50K against $329 for the two-step, pays a lower split, and still imposes a 10% profit target.
Watch: the site says no consistency rule while the terms still carry an active consistency clause; the advertised 90% split is shown as 85% or 75% in the firm own calculator; and the Trustpilot rating is unavailable on Trustpilot’s official website.
AudaCity Capital has been trading since 2012, one of the longest records in this category. It sells three programmes on MetaTrader 5 and DXTrade, from 5,000 to 200,000 dollars. The contracting entity is AudaCity Global LTD, registration 15850, operating under an International Brokerage and Clearing House Licence issued by the Union of Comoros, with a London office and a Cyprus payment partner. That licence is real, which puts it ahead of rivals holding none, but it is a light-touch offshore regime rather than a major-market regulator. Its strongest feature is drawdown room: phase one of the Ability Challenge allows a 7.5 percent daily loss and a 15 percent maximum, static and measured on the initial balance, with no time limit and news trading, weekend holding, expert advisors and copy trading all permitted. Three cautions. FTP, the instant funding route, costs 1,299 dollars at 50,000 against 329 for the two-step, pays a lower split and still imposes a 10 percent profit target. The site advertises no consistency rule while the terms still contain an active consistency clause that can fail a challenge. And the advertised 90 percent split is shown as 85 percent or 75 percent in the firm's own scaling calculator.
OVERALL SCORE
7.7
PROS:
Trading since 2012, one of the longest records in the category
Holds an Anjouan brokerage licence where most rivals hold none
The loosest drawdown rules measured on this site: 7.5 percent daily and 15 percent maximum in phase one
Drawdown is static and measured on initial balance, not trailing
No time limit on any evaluation, and news, weekends, expert advisors and copy trading all permitted
Scaling doubles the account across ten steps, plus free competition and education routes
CONS:
FTP instant funding costs about four times the two-step at 50,000 dollars, pays a lower split and still has a 10 percent target
The site advertises no consistency rule while the terms carry an active consistency clause
The advertised 90 percent split is not supported by the firm's own calculator, which shows 85 or 75 percent
The scaling ceiling is stated inconsistently as 2M, 240K and 768K in different places
The terms reserve an absolute right to withdraw any trader without explanation
No per-payout proof published, only headline totals and a named feed
Axi Select is a no-challenge-fee funded program from Axi, an established broker founded in 2007. Instead of paying to pass a demo, you fund your own live account (from $500) and Axi allocates its own capital on top as you climb six stages, from $5,000 at Seed to $1,000,000 at Pro M, with the split rising from 0% to a maximum of 80%. Two things to understand before you start. The regulatory position is easy to over-credit: the Axi group is genuinely regulated (ASIC, FCA, DFSA), but Axi Select is operated by AxiTrader LLC, an offshore St Vincent entity, OUTSIDE that perimeter. And everything is gated by the proprietary Edge Score, which Axi does not fully publish and reserves the right to change at any time.
PROS:
No challenge fee, no monthly fee, no reset fee - you are not buying an evaluation
Backed by Axi, an established and elsewhere-regulated broker operating since 2007
Capital scales to a real $1,000,000 at a competitive 80% top split
Quarantine gives second chances in the middle stages rather than instant removal
Monthly automatic payouts with a payout certificate
A genuinely trader-aligned structure: you are rewarded for proven skill, not for passing a demo
CONS:
The program is run by AxiTrader LLC, an unregulated offshore SVG entity - the group licences do not protect Select participants
Not truly free: you fund and risk at least $500 of your own money and pay standard trading costs
Everything is gated by a black-box Edge Score the firm can change at will
Seed pays 0%, and reaching the $1m/80% tier needs six stages at Edge Score 90 and $20,000 of your own equity
Blink Funding has one of the more thoughtfully-designed rule sets around: a 3-Step line with no daily loss limit, a balance-based (not equity-based) daily calculation, a closed-balance trailing drawdown that locks at your starting balance, a "max lots with risk" mechanic that rewards moving positions to breakeven, and a promise that you keep your share of gains even on a hard breach. No time limit, no monthly fee, US base with named infrastructure partners. Weigh against that: the split is 75% not the 90% the marketing leads with; leverage is lower than the cards imply; stop-loss-free and weekend trading are PAID add-ons; and the "live markets, real profits" pitch is contradicted by a Terms document describing NOTIONAL funding with Blink as a possible counterparty. No registered entity or number is published.
Overall
7.5
PROS:
The 3-Step line has no daily loss limit, paired with a low 5% static drawdown
Daily loss is calculated on the previous day's closing balance, not equity - a fairer method
The 1-Step trailing drawdown is on closed balance and locks at your starting balance after +6%
The "max lots with risk" rule rewards moving stops to breakeven, freeing capacity
You keep your share of gains even if you hard-breach while holding them
No time limit, no monthly fee, US base with named infrastructure partners
Blink discloses its counterparty conflict of interest openly, which many peers do not
CONS:
The funded account is marketed as "live, real profits" but the Terms describe notional funding with Blink as a possible direct counterparty
The base split is 75%; the advertised "up to 90%" is a paid add-on
Trading without a stop-loss and holding over the weekend are each paid add-ons at a 10% surcharge
No registered company name, number or address is published anywhere
Withdrawing all your gains locks the drawdown and can forfeit the account - partial withdrawals needed
Blue Guardian offers simulated CFD and Futures programs plus a separately earned Futures Live tier. CFD models have stage-specific news restrictions, qualifying days and floating-loss controls; Nano consistency is not the same as Standard. Futures payout caps and buffers vary by size and model, with dated changes for Express and Direct. Five payouts create Live-review eligibility rather than automatic promotion. The detailed help pages should be checked alongside the purchased account terms.
OVERALL SCORE
8.1
PROS:
Static maximum drawdown on CFD Two Step Standard and Nano
Separate CFD and Futures program choices
Own-account trade copying permitted
Futures Reserve offers daily-loss removal option
Multiple trading platforms across the two markets
CONS:
Funded CFD news restrictions differ from evaluation permission
Guardian Shield can reduce profit share or breach accounts
Qualifying days, consistency and withdrawal buffers vary by model
CFD processing fee and selected payout caps
Futures caps vary by size; Live promotion is discretionary
Some homepage claims conflict with detailed help rules
Blueberry Funded launched in August 2024 as the prop arm of the broker Blueberry Markets, and the broker relationship is structurally real: funded traders can take payouts straight into a Blueberry Markets trading account. The operating entity is Blueberry Markets (SVG) LLC in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, so the prop product itself is unregulated, and residents of the United States and Australia are both on the restricted list. Six plans run in parallel: 1-Step, Flex 1-Step, Prime 2-Step, Instant Elite, Instant Lite and a separate Synthetic Indices challenge, priced from $25 for a $5,000 synthetic account and $44 for a $5,000 1-Step, scaling 25% every three months to a simulated $2,000,000 with the split rising to 90%. There is no payout on demand: the first withdrawal comes 14 days after activation, or 7 with a paid add-on. Platforms are MetaTrader 5 and TradeLocker only. Its Trustpilot rating is currently unavailable on the Trustpilot official website, with 35% of 1,725 reviews at one star.
OVERALL SCORE
7.8
PROS:
Genuine broker backing, with payouts payable directly into a Blueberry Markets trading account
Cheap evaluations: $25 for a $5,000 synthetic account and $44 for a $5,000 1-Step, with no discount code needed on 1-Step
Instant Elite carries no daily drawdown at all, which is rare
Scaling of 25% every three months to a simulated $2,000,000, with the split rising to 90%
Public rules document and a live, timestamped payout tracker verified by a third party
Account reset option lets you restart a phase instead of rebuying
No consistency rule on 1-Step, Flex or Prime
CONS:
Not available to residents of the United States or Australia
No payout on demand; the first withdrawal is 14 days after activation, or 7 with a paid add-on
Trustpilot rating unavailable on the Trustpilot official website, with 35% of 1,725 reviews at one star
Martingale, grid, tick scalping and high-frequency trading are prohibited, with a five-minute minimum hold on every position
Flex bans weekend holding and cuts the split from 85% to 60% on a second news-trading strike
MetaTrader 5 and TradeLocker only; TradingView is not offered
The firm publishes three different trader counts across three of its own pages
Bright Funded is a Dubai firm (Bright Global FZCO) running three plans on DXtrade, cTrader and MT5, with no consistency rule and weekend holding allowed. Two points deserve attention before you buy: the 1-Step uses a real-time TRAILING drawdown - the firm's own worked example breaches an account that is only 3.5% down - and the fee refund is a paid add-on rather than something included.
OVERALL SCORE
8.3
PROS:
No consistency rule at all - one of the few firms that can say this
Static drawdown on the 2-Step Bright (8%) and 2-Step Classic (10%)
No minimum payout - you can withdraw from $0.01
Weekend and overnight holding both permitted
Expert Advisors allowed (though not on DXtrade)
Three platforms: DXtrade, cTrader and MetaTrader 5
Payouts processed within one day of request
No recurring or monthly fees
CONS:
The 1-Step drawdown trails in real time - their own example breaches an account only 3.5% down
The fee refund is a PAID ADD-ON - without it, there is no refund at all once you trade
The base split is 80%; 90% is a paid add-on and 100% needs three scale-ups (12+ months)
Weekly payouts are a paid add-on; the default first payout is 30 days, then every 14
News-window profits are deducted, but news-window losses are not compensated
Firm comparison
Firm
Why it belongs here
Main check before buying
The Trading Pit
rules
Check the live review before buying
Funded Trading Plus
rules
Check the live review before buying
FTMO
rules
Check the live review before buying
The Concept Trading
rules
Check the live review before buying
The5ers
rules
Check the live review before buying
FTUK
rules
Check the live review before buying
Which CFD programmes qualify?
The inclusion test is an identifiable CFD programme with published instruments and account rules. A general claim to offer “forex funding” is insufficient to establish which indices, metals or other contracts are available. Where a provider sells both CFD and futures accounts, compare the CFD product’s loss limits, platform and charges. Rules from its futures division cannot establish the conditions of its CFD challenge.
Compare evaluation access separately from the access available at the funded stage. Symbol availability, leverage and permissions may change between stages. A programme that lets you hold an index position during the challenge needs a separate check for the same permission once rewards become payable.
Compare the cost of your actual trade
CFD costs can combine a bid-ask spread, transaction commission and overnight financing. Check whether commission is quoted per side or for a complete opening and closing transaction. Then inspect the specification for your symbol: contract size, minimum trade size, trading hours and any financing schedule. Two platforms can display a similar instrument name while assigning different monetary exposure to one lot.
For an illustrative comparison, price the same gold trade at two firms using the same entry, stop distance and holding period. Include both transaction costs and any overnight charge. This exposes differences that a headline “spreads from zero” claim cannot show. A day trader and a trader holding through several rollovers can reasonably prefer different programmes.
Open losses and market interruptions
A daily loss rule may count floating losses alongside closed results and charges. Establish the reset time and calculate what happens if a profitable day ends with an open losing position. Yesterday’s closed profit may cease to provide the cushion you expected after the daily calculation resets.
News windows deserve an instrument-level check. Determine whether the rule restricts opening orders, closing orders, pending-order execution or profits earned during an event. Also read the treatment of market gaps and weekend holds. Permission to keep a position open does not guarantee that a stop will fill at its requested price when trading resumes.
When another market is a better fit
This category does not suit someone seeking ownership of shares or cryptocurrency. It also offers a poor starting point for strategies that specifically require an exchange order book, a particular futures expiry or verifiable exchange execution. Those requirements belong in a market-specific comparison.
CFD funding may fit an established multi-asset strategy, but only when the programme’s symbol settings and restrictions match its mechanics. If the strategy earns most of its returns during prohibited news windows or depends on holding through a disallowed market closure, a larger account will not resolve the mismatch. Eliminate that programme before comparing its advertised profit split.
CFD account questions
Why can the same gold trade produce different results at two CFD firms?
The symbol name does not tell you the whole specification. Contract size, spread, commission and financing can differ between providers. Compare the monetary value of a price move and the full cost of opening, holding and closing the position. Copying the same lot size across accounts may create different exposure.
Can a CFD position breach the daily limit while I am asleep?
It can if the programme includes unrealised losses in its daily calculation. Overnight charges and the daily reset can also change the available buffer. Before leaving a position open, work through the firm’s reset calculation using your closed profit, floating loss and expected charges.
Does access to a stock CFD mean I own the company’s shares?
No. A stock CFD gives exposure to a share’s price movement under the contract’s terms. It does not establish share ownership or shareholder voting rights. In a simulated CFD programme, even that exposure is recorded in a simulated account, with rewards governed by a separate agreement.
Can I move the same CFD position size from forex to an index?
Calculate exposure from each symbol’s contract specification first. One lot of a currency pair and one lot of an index can represent very different monetary risks. Use the intended stop distance, value per price increment and trading costs to determine the order size for that instrument.
What should a CFD news restriction say about pending orders?
It should explain whether orders placed before an announcement may execute during the restricted window. Ask how stop-loss and take-profit executions are treated as well. A rule against opening new trades manually does not establish what happens when an existing order triggers automatically.
SFX Funded
65% OFF
JoinProp Exclusive · 65% off for new traders with code JoinProp
