FundingPips Pricing Breakdown: Challenge Costs vs FTMO and What Traders Actually Pay in 2026

The first thing most traders look at when comparing prop firms is the challenge price.

A $50,000 account for one firm may appear cheaper than a $50,000 account elsewhere. But the fee alone does not tell you what the evaluation really costs.

Profit targets, daily drawdown, maximum loss, minimum trading days, consistency requirements, payout conditions, profit splits, scaling rules, and refund policies can all change the practical value of a challenge.

That is especially relevant when comparing FundingPips vs FTMO.

FundingPips currently offers five models: 1 Step Flex, 2 Step Standard, 2 Step Flex, 2 Step Pro, and Zero, with account sizes ranging from $5,000 to $200,000. The models have different evaluation structures, risk limits, and reward arrangements.

FTMO similarly offers 1-Step and 2-Step evaluation routes, with current 2-Step account sizes from $10,000 to $200,000. Its published 2-Step fees include €89 for $10K, €250 for $25K, €345 for $50K, €540 for $100K, and €1,080 for $200K, although promotional pricing can change the amount shown at checkout.

So, is FundingPips actually cheaper than FTMO?

Sometimes the answer can be yes, but the more useful comparison is what the fee buys you under each firm's rules.

Related Read: https://propfirmsinsider.com/guides/funding-pips-kyc-account-flagging-issues-what-traders-should-know-in-2026

FundingPips Pricing Explained: How Much Does a Challenge Cost?

How much do FundingPips challenges cost by account size and evaluation model?

FundingPips does not have one universal challenge price.

Instead, the price depends on the account size and model selected.

The current FundingPips lineup includes:

• ●1 Step Flex
• ●2 Step Standard
• ●2 Step Flex
• ●2 Step Pro
• ●Zero

Account sizes range from $5,000 to $200,000, although not every size is available on every model. FundingPips directs traders to select the model and account size before checkout, so the applicable fee should be checked against the current purchase page rather than relying on an old pricing table.

This matters because comparing only "$100K FundingPips" with "$100K FTMO" can hide a major difference.

A $100K account can have different:

• ●profit targets;
• ●daily loss limits;
• ●maximum drawdown;
• ●minimum trading days;
• ●reward cycles;
• ●consistency conditions;
• ●risk-per-trade rules;
• ●refund arrangements.

For example, FundingPips' current 1 Step Flex requires a 12% evaluation target and has no minimum trading-day requirement or evaluation time limit. Its current maximum loss is 12%, while the daily loss limit is 3% of the higher opening balance or equity for the day.

Its 2 Step Standard uses an 8% Phase 1 target followed by 5% in Phase 2, with a minimum of three trading days in each phase.

The result is that the cheapest-looking option is not automatically the easiest or most suitable option.

What is included in the FundingPips challenge fee?

The challenge fee gives access to the selected simulated evaluation environment.

FundingPips currently describes its accounts as simulated trading accounts rather than live brokerage accounts. It also publishes a commission schedule: Forex and Metals generally carry $5 per standard lot, with a higher charge for the swap-free MT5 option, while Energies and Indices have no commission and Crypto carries a percentage-based commission.

That means traders should separate entry cost from trading cost.

The total cost of using a prop account can include:

1. ●Initial challenge fee
2. ●Trading commissions
3. ●Spread and execution costs
4. ●Reset costs, if applicable
5. ●Platform-related costs, where applicable
6. ●Currency conversion or payment charges

FundingPips also has different registration-fee refund rules. Its current documentation states that the original registration fee is refunded after the fourth reward on the 2 Step Standard Master Account. That refund does not apply to 1 Step Flex, 2 Step Flex, 2 Step Pro, or Zero.

That is an important distinction when comparing headline prices.

FundingPips vs FTMO Pricing: Is the Cheaper Challenge Actually Cheaper?

How does FundingPips pricing compare with FTMO for $10K, $25K, $50K, and $100K accounts?

FTMO currently publishes the following standard 2-Step fees:

FTMO states that its 2-Step fee is a one-time payment covering both evaluation stages and is reimbursed with the first reward after successfully becoming an FTMO Trader.

FTMO's current 1-Step structure is priced differently. For example, its published 1-Step prices include €79 for $10K, €199 for $25K, and €319 for $50K, with a non-refundable fee.

FundingPips requires a different approach because its pricing is tied to five models and the account size selected. Its current documentation confirms the model and size range but does not present one universal fee applicable to every model.

Therefore, a fair pricing comparison should use the same account size and comparable evaluation model, not simply whichever number looks lower on a landing page.

Why should traders compare challenge fees with drawdown, profit targets, refunds, and payouts?

Imagine two $100K challenges.

One costs less but requires a significantly higher profit target with tighter risk conditions.

The other costs more but has a lower target, different drawdown mechanics, and a clearer fee-refund structure.

The second challenge could potentially make more sense for a particular trading system even though its initial price is higher.

This is why a useful calculation is:

Effective challenge cost = entry fee + likely trading costs + reset exposure − applicable fee refund or credit.

It is not a prediction of how much a trader will lose. It is simply a better way to compare the economics of the evaluation.

FundingPips Evaluation Models: Which Challenge Structure Fits Your Trading Style?

Should you choose FundingPips 1 Step Flex, 2 Step Standard, 2 Step Flex, 2 Step Pro, or Zero?

Each FundingPips model serves a different evaluation structure.

1 Step Flex has one evaluation phase before the Master Account. It currently uses a 12% profit target, no minimum trading days, and no evaluation time limit.

2 Step Standard splits the evaluation into two phases: 8% followed by 5%, with at least three trading days in each phase.

2 Step Flex uses 10% in Phase 1 and 6% in Phase 2. Traders can select an 85% bi-weekly reward structure or a 95% structure tied to profitable-day requirements.

Zero removes the traditional evaluation phase and instead provides an instant Master Account structure, with its own daily-loss and account-management conditions.

This creates different psychological demands.

A one-step evaluation may appeal to a trader who wants fewer stages. A two-step structure can provide more checkpoints for a trader who prefers to prove consistency progressively.

The key is matching the evaluation model to the strategy rather than selecting the lowest advertised price.

Related Read: https://propfirmsinsider.com/guides/the5ers-vs-funding-pips-no-time-limit-vs-fast-payouts-which-trading-structure-actually-wins

How do FundingPips profit targets, drawdown limits, and consistency rules change the real cost?

Risk rules can matter more than the entry fee.

For example, FundingPips' current 1 Step Flex has a 12% maximum loss and a 3% daily loss limit, while 2 Step Flex has a 12% maximum loss and 4% daily loss limit.

There are also rules beyond the headline drawdown figures.

FundingPips introduced a Risk Per Trade Idea framework on applicable Master Accounts. Under the current rules, the limits vary by model and account size. For example, 2 Step Flex has no such limit below $25K, a 3% limit at $25K, and a 2% limit above $25K.

That means a trader's normal position-sizing system matters.

Someone who risks very little per trade may never interact with the rule. A trader who concentrates risk into individual setups may need to redesign the strategy after reaching the Master Account.

The5ers vs FundingPips vs FTMO: What Does the Entry Price Really Buy?

How does The5ers pricing compare with FundingPips and FTMO when you include scaling, payouts, and profit splits?

The5ers deserves a closer look because its current programs demonstrate why the entry fee is only one part of the decision.

Its current 2-Step $100K plan has two entry versions. The newer version costs $149 with a 10% Phase 1 target and 5% Phase 2 target, while the Classic version costs $179 with an 8% Phase 1 target and 5% Phase 2 target. Both use a 10% maximum loss and a 3% daily loss limit during evaluation.

Once funded, the 2-Step account uses a 50% consistency requirement.

The5ers also has a separate Futures route. Its current Futures evaluation costs $59 for a $25K account, uses a 6% evaluation target, 4% funded-stage target, 4% EOD maximum loss, and 40% per-position consistency rule. It can scale to $500K.

These are fundamentally different products.

Therefore, comparing a $59 Futures evaluation directly with a $149 or €250 CFD evaluation would not tell a trader much unless the market, strategy, drawdown structure, and payout model are also considered.

Which account-growth pathway matters for traders thinking beyond the first payout?

This is where a prop firm's scaling plan becomes important.

The5ers High Stakes program currently publishes a scaling table that increases the account after each 10% target. The published pathway reaches $500,000, with the profit split progressing from 80/20 at the earlier stages to 85/15, 90/10, and eventually 100/0 plus fixed payout amounts at the higher levels.

The5ers' Hyper Growth program takes a different approach: its current rules state that every 10% profit generated on a funded account doubles the account balance, while the profit split can progress from 50% toward 100%.

Its Futures program again uses another model, scaling at 10% profit milestones. The published example shows a $50K account reaching a $5,000 profit milestone, followed by a 5% buying-power increase and a larger contract allowance.

This is valuable for traders who are thinking about account growth as a process rather than a single evaluation.

Beyond the Challenge Fee: Drawdown, Payouts, Profit Splits, and Scaling

Can a cheaper prop firm challenge become more expensive because of tighter drawdown or payout conditions?

It can be less economical for a particular trader if the rules do not fit the trading strategy.

Consider a trader who normally takes small, frequent positions. A high maximum loss may be less important than commission costs and consistency rules.

A swing trader may care more about overnight and weekend holding rules.

A news trader may prioritize execution conditions.

A trader focused on long-term account growth may put more weight on scaling and payout progression.

The "cheapest" challenge therefore depends on the trader's operating model.

How do profit split progression, payout frequency, and scaling affect long-term value?

Payout timing changes how quickly a trader can actually access rewards.

The5ers currently allows funded traders to request payouts on a biweekly basis under its applicable programs, although individual programs have their own minimum-profit and payout-cap conditions. Its Futures payout system also uses a 14-day cycle, and the firm states that withdrawals do not affect scaling.

Profit split can also evolve.

The5ers' current published rules show several pathways where the trader's share can increase as the account scales. High Stakes, for example, starts at 80% and can progress through higher percentages at defined account milestones.

That creates a different value proposition from simply paying the lowest initial fee.

For a trader building a long-term framework, the important sequence is:

evaluation → funded account → consistent risk → first payout → scaling → larger allocation → higher profit share.

Which Prop Firm Pricing Structure Fits Your Trading Plan?

Is a low-cost challenge better for scalpers, intraday traders, swing traders, or consistency-focused traders?

There is no universal answer.

A scalper should examine:

• ●commissions;
• ●spread;
• ●execution;
• ●minimum holding rules;
• ●news restrictions;
• ●daily drawdown.

An intraday trader should focus on:

• ●daily loss;
• ●maximum loss;
• ●position sizing;
• ●profit targets;
• ●consistency.

A swing trader should examine:

• ●overnight holding;
• ●weekend rules;
• ●swap;
• ●drawdown calculation;
• ●payout conditions.

A trader focused on long-term development should add:

• ●scaling milestones;
• ●account-growth limits;
• ●profit split progression;
• ●payout frequency;
• ●consistency requirements;
• ●rules after funding.

The psychological side matters too.

A challenge structure that fits the trader's normal risk process can reduce the temptation to change position size simply to reach a target faster. A clearly defined scaling pathway can also give traders a reason to focus on repeatable performance rather than one unusually large winning trade.

What should you calculate before buying FundingPips, The5ers, FTMO, or another challenge?

Use this checklist before paying an evaluation fee:

1. Entry fee
What is the exact current price for the model and account size?

2. Profit target
How much must you make before advancing?

3. Daily loss
How is the daily limit calculated?

4. Maximum drawdown
Is it static, trailing, or equity-based?

5. Consistency
Is there a best-day, best-trade, or profitable-day requirement?

6. Trading costs
What commissions, spreads, swaps, or platform costs apply?

7. Payout
When can the first withdrawal be requested?

8. Profit split
Does the trader's percentage change as the account grows?

9. Scaling
What happens after reaching each profit milestone?

10. Long-term fit
Can the rules support the strategy after the evaluation rather than only during it?

This final question is often overlooked.

The goal of an evaluation is not merely to pass a challenge. For a trader seeking a sustainable funded-account routine, the rules need to remain workable after the account reaches the Master or funded stage.

Final Takeaway

FundingPips pricing can look attractive when compared with established alternatives, but the challenge fee is only the starting point.

The real comparison is:

price + profit target + drawdown + consistency + trading costs + payout rules + profit split + scaling.

FTMO's current 2-Step pricing provides a straightforward benchmark, with a one-time fee that is refunded after the first reward. FundingPips offers more model variation, meaning traders have to compare the exact evaluation structure they intend to purchase.

The5ers adds another useful perspective because its programs place considerable emphasis on what happens after the evaluation: scaling milestones, payout structures, changing profit splits, drawdown rules, and longer-term account growth.

For traders who want to build a repeatable funded-account career rather than simply find the lowest entry price, that post-evaluation structure can be just as important as the challenge fee.

The best buying process is therefore not "Which firm is cheapest?"

It is:

Which program gives my trading strategy enough room to operate, provides a workable payout structure, and offers a realistic path from evaluation to long-term account growth?

For more prop firm comparisons, scaling guides, and trader education, explore Prop Firm Insider.