FundingPips Reviews

I have been a FundingPips customer for a considerable period of time, successfully completing multiple challenges, reaching the funded Master stage, and receiving several payouts. Unfortunately, my recent experience has been extremely disappointing and has raised serious concerns about the company’s transparency and fairness. I currently have two affected One Step Master accounts: * Account #20031387, created on June 1, 2026. * Account #20395118, created on July 16, 2026. Both accounts were purchased under the Bi-Weekly reward cycle, and both had a scheduled reward availability date of October 8, 2026. However, approximately one day before I was due to request my payouts, FundingPips unexpectedly suspended trading on both accounts and informed me that I was required to switch to the new Monthly reward cycle. This was not optional. FundingPips explicitly confirmed that trading would remain disabled until I accepted the new conditions. The new Monthly cycle introduces substantial additional requirements, including a 35% consistency rule, at least seven profitable trading days with a minimum profit of 0.5% of the starting account size per qualifying day, and a reduced 1% Striking System warning threshold. These conditions were not applicable to my accounts when I purchased them. Most importantly, FundingPips confirmed in writing that both accounts had been purchased before the introduction of the Monthly reward cycle, but stated that the new requirements would nevertheless apply because its internal trading review occurred afterward. I find this extremely concerning, particularly because I had already generated profits under the original conditions. On one account, based on my calculations, meeting the newly imposed 35% consistency requirement could require approximately $20,000 in total profit before I become eligible to withdraw my existing rewards. This effectively forces me to continue taking additional trading risks to access profits that I had already generated. FundingPips justified the decision by referring to a review conducted by its Responsible Trading Team under Section 9 of its Terms and Conditions. However, despite repeatedly requesting clarification, I have not received specific information identifying which trades were considered problematic, which objective criteria were applied, or why both accounts were selected. Instead, customer support has repeatedly explained the new Monthly cycle without addressing my actual questions. Another concern is that FundingPips previously promoted the possibility of generating profits through a single trade. I therefore find it difficult to understand why my trading performance is now being used to justify restrictions that significantly affect my payout eligibility. I proposed a reasonable solution: allow me to receive my already scheduled payouts under the original Bi-Weekly conditions, and apply any new requirements only to future trading activity. FundingPips did not agree to this proposal and maintained that the transition was mandatory. Even more concerning, my dashboard continued to display “Reward Cycle Biweekly” and “Reward available since October 8, 2026” while both accounts were marked as suspended and trading was disabled. I believe this situation raises serious questions about retroactive changes to payout conditions, transparency of internal compliance decisions, and fair treatment of existing customers. I am not claiming that FundingPips has been proven to engage in fraudulent activity. However, based on my documented experience, I am extremely dissatisfied with the handling of this situation. I hope Prop Firm Match will review these concerns and encourage FundingPips to provide a transparent explanation and a fair resolution, particularly regarding the profits generated before the new restrictions were imposed.

Very good, easy to use and reliable for beginners. Genuinely I believe everyone should try this prop as far as they remain consistent in what they do and are transparent.

I had purchased a $50K Flex account. I completed the 15-day evaluation phase and passed it successfully. After that, I received the Master Account. I traded on it for 5 days and then violated the C-ID rule. Now, the main problem is that I have two Gmail accounts. Initially, I purchased an account using my first Gmail account, and that account was breached. So, there was never any issue regarding KYC. After that, I decided not to purchase another account using the same Gmail address. I thought that if I purchased a new account, I would use my second Gmail address instead. So, I purchased a new account using my second Gmail address. After 15 days of hard work, I passed the evaluation and received the Master Account. I completed KYC, traded for 5 days, and made around $3,000 in profit. Then, just 6 days before the payout, my account was breached. Now, the main issue is that FundingPips is saying that they knew I had created the account using a different Gmail address and that I should not have done that when purchasing the account. But my question is: if using a different Gmail address was against the rules, why wasn’t I stopped when I purchased the account? Even if they didn’t detect it at the time of purchase, they could have breached the account during the evaluation phase. I would have had no issue with that. At the very least, when I completed KYC, they could have rejected my KYC and told me that I was not eligible under their rules. They should not have given me the Master Account if I was violating a rule. But after giving me the Master Account, why did they wait another 8 days and then breach the account when I was already around $3,000 in profit? Give me an honest answer. If using a different Gmail address was genuinely a rule violation, then why was the account allowed to go through KYC, receive the Master Account, complete 5 trading days, and generate $3,000 in profit before being breached just before the payout? If the rule was the issue, they should have breached the account during KYC or at least before giving me the Master Account. The fact that they waited until I had completed 5 trading days, made $3,000 in profit, and was only 6 days away from the payout makes the whole situation look very suspicious. Honestly, from my perspective, it makes it look like a wrong

I recently requested my payout from Funding Pips, and the overall experience has been fantastic. The approval process was smooth, and the payout system is extremely fast and reliable. I received my funds without any hassle. Highly recommend Funding Pips to any trader looking for a trustworthy prop firm!

Soft KYC approved & accounts enabled, then permanently banned for “forgery” with no chance to prove the document is real – no refund I purchased two FundingPips Zero 50K accounts and paid with cryptocurrency. Timeline: Completed Soft KYC with my real government ID → approved. Received the user agreement, signed it, and got an email confirming both accounts were enabled for trading. The next day the dashboard showed KYC as “Not Verified”. I repeated the process with the exact same ID card. This time it was declined by KYCAID for “signs of possible alteration or forgery”. FundingPips immediately permanently closed the accounts and banned me for life. I contacted both FundingPips and KYCAID support multiple times. FundingPips kept sending the same copy-paste replies saying the document shows signs of forgery, they have zero tolerance, the decision is final, and they will take no further action. They never: Showed me what exactly looked forged. Gave me any opportunity to submit clearer photos, a video of the physical ID, or any other proof. Offered a refund even though the accounts had already been enabled after the first successful KYC. KYCAID also refused to review it and told me to contact FundingPips. I have used this same genuine ID successfully with multiple other prop firms. The first verification with FundingPips itself passed. Yet they treated the second automated result as absolute, refused any manual review or chance to prove the document is real, and kept the money. As a well-known firm in the industry, this handling feels extremely poor. Once the automated system flagged it, they showed zero interest in resolving a clear false-positive situation or refunding a customer whose accounts they had already activated. Extremely frustrating experience - I cannot recommend them after this.

The firm is pretty good with DL and maximumDL, the pricing is bit high and they don't usually provides heavy discounts .... The dashboard is pretty clean and user friendly also.

my 1st payout on funding pips it,s very good firm no denie payouts i good experince on fundingpips just 1 issue i facing my payouy no direct withdrawl it,s throug tradin this is not good otherwise fundingpips very good firm all sides

Best firm in propfirm industry. Good beginners friendly interface. Support are also good. Trading conditions are also good. Rules are not rigid good for beginners.

I’ve been trading with FundingPips and overall, it’s one of the best prop firms I’ve used. The support team is excellent and very responsive. The only downside for me is that the spreads can be quite harsh, especially on XAUUSD during certain market conditions. Other than that, great experience overall.

3★ Review – Excellent payouts, poor customer service I’ve been with FundingPips for a long time and my experience has been mixed, which is why I feel 3 stars is fair. Their payout process has always been excellent. I’ve never had a payout denied and payments have been processed promptly. Based purely on payouts, I would give FundingPips 5 stars. Unfortunately, my recent experience with customer support has significantly changed my overall view. I reset an account believing I was resetting the same Standard account I had previously purchased. The reset instead resulted in a Flex account with different rules. I traded according to the Standard rules I was familiar with and subsequently breached the account. I accept that FundingPips say the change was disclosed during the reset process. However, I wasn’t asking for a free account or a complete reset. I simply asked them to consider the circumstances, my history with the company and whether a reasonable solution could be offered. The case was eventually escalated to R***y, but unfortunately the escalation didn’t feel like an escalation at all. Throughout speaking with several members of support, including R***y, the responses repeatedly felt like generic templates reiterating the same policy rather than someone genuinely reviewing my individual situation. This is probably my biggest criticism of FundingPips. The customer service lacks a human touch. Statements such as “we appreciate your loyalty” and “we apologise for any inconvenience” mean very little when there appears to be no discretion or consideration behind them. Excellent when it comes to payouts, but based on my experience, customer relations and the handling of escalated issues need significant improvement.