FundingPips Reviews

This is my first experience with prop firm and I am happy that I decided to start with Funding pips. I started challenge in October and today 11th of November I received my first payout. Customer support is very nice, payout process very easy as for who did it first time.

**Very Disappointing Experience with FundingPips – 4 Accounts Breached Due to Stop-Loss Issues** I had 8 account out of which 4 account of $5,000 with FundingPips were breached because my stop-loss (SL) orders did not execute as expected. I had placed stop-loss orders to manage my risk and protect my accounts, but they failed to work as intended, resulting in unexpected losses and account breaches. As a trader, I rely on proper stop-loss execution to manage risk. Losing four accounts due to these issues is extremely frustrating and disappointing. I request FundingPips to investigate these incidents, explain why my stop-loss orders failed, and provide a fair resolution. Traders should not have to suffer account breaches because of potential execution or platform issues. **Extremely disappointed with my experience.**

I lost $188 that day on my $5K account, mostly on two gold shorts, close to the $204 daily limit. What appears to have been a brief spread spike then pushed equity about $0.25 past the limit and the account was breached. I asked for tick-level logs to check the execution and support refused, citing confidentiality. I think firms should show the price data behind a breach this close.

I bought a FundingPips 2-Step Flex account after clicking an ad that said they had removed risk per trade idea, the striking system, and profit concentration. Those promises were a major reason I bought the account. A FundingPips representative later contacted me on WhatsApp, told me I was “top 1 in the MENA,” and invited me to do a public interview about my trading success. Then, with $8,052.32 in profit on my $100,000 Master account, FundingPips suspended trading and blocked reward requests. I asked support and the risk team multiple times to identify a specific trade, rule breach, or example of poor risk management that justified the decision. They said they had reviewed my trading activity. They never showed me a specific violation. My account was on a biweekly payout cycle. Switching to on-demand was the only option the dashboard gave me to continue. I was now facing seven minimum profitable days, a 35% consistency cap, and a 1% drawdown trigger per trade idea with a warning system. The same email directing me to take action on my account still carried the ad saying they had removed risk per trade idea, the striking system, and profit concentration. Before accepting the switch, I asked support on WhatsApp whether my earlier profit would count as my best day under the new consistency rule. They told me the rule would apply from the point I selected on-demand. I understood that to mean my earlier trading would be excluded. That answer was the reason I accepted. After the switch, the dashboard counted my $8,072.48 best day from before the switch. When I challenged it, the Responsible Trading Team confirmed in writing that prior-cycle trading history was included and that the dashboard was working as intended. With that day counted, I would need about $23,064 in total qualifying profit to clear the 35% rule alone, assuming it remained my best day. That’s roughly $15,000 more in profit before I could clear that hurdle to request a payout on the roughly $8,000 I’d already made. I feel misled by both the advertising and the answer I got before switching. I went from being invited to showcase my trading to having my account suspended without being shown a specific violation. My experience leaves me questioning whether other profitable traders can rely on the advertised terms when it’s time to request a payout. I’m asking FundingPips to identify what triggered the suspension, explain why it counted earlier trades after the answer support gave me, and review my reward under the biweekly terms I was trading under.

FundingPips changed the reward rules on two 1 Step Flex accounts after I passed them. Documented case I’m Ivan Baldassi, an Italian day trader and MQL4/MQL5 developer. I have received 27 payouts from FTMO, The5ers, Hola Prime and FundingPips itself (4 FundingPips rewards, $12,048.13 in total, the latest on 2 Nov 2026). I have never had a dispute like this with any other firm. I am still a FundingPips customer: as of today (6 Nov 2026) I hold three funded $100K accounts (two of them are the accounts in this story) and one 1 Step Flex $100K challenge in progress with them. **What happened** - I bought two 1 Step Flex $100K challenges with the Bi-Weekly 80% cycle. The product page advertises: *"A single-phase challenge with no consistency rule and no minimum trading days"* and *"80% – Biweekly rewards"*. - Both accounts reached the +12% target (29 Oct – 4 Nov 2026). - On 5 Nov both were marked "Rejected" by the Responsible Trading team. The dashboard offered only one option: continue on the **On Demand** cycle. Until I chose, my profile could not buy new challenges. **Same decision, three different explanations on the same day (plus different conditions)** - Chat: an *"RTP_Violation"*, described as a violation of the risk limit per single trade idea. - Chat, senior support: Section 9 of the T&C. The conditions offered were *"On-Demand reward cycle, a 35% consistency rule, a 90% reward split and adjusted leverage"*. - Email: Section 7 of the Terms. Accounts may be moved to On Demand when a strategy is *"high-risk, hyper-scalping, or heavily concentrated within specific market windows"*. It does not say which of these applies to me. - The dashboard and the Rewards FAQ say On Demand is **100%**, with a 35% consistency score, **7 profitable days** of 0.5%+, and the **Striking System**. - The same morning, a FundingPips promo email said: *"1 Step Flex: 12% max loss, up to 100% reward split, no consistency rules."* - FundingPips’ official Instagram announced that *"Risk Per Trade Idea"* and the *"Striking System"* had been removed. So: is it 90% or 100%? Is it consistency only, or consistency plus 7 profitable days plus the Striking System? I asked for the exact clause I violated and for the rules that now apply. At the time of writing I have no answer. I was forced to accept On Demand, the only option on the dashboard: otherwise the accounts would have stayed locked. They are still under review today, and I still want the Bi-Weekly cycle I paid for. **My opinion:** changing the reward conditions after a challenge is passed, without pointing to a written rule that was broken, is unfair. When ads say "no consistency rules" and the funded account gets one, I find that misleading. Please read the evidence and judge for yourself. Screenshots, exact quotes and the full timeline are here: https://www.digitalset.it/problemfundingpips If FundingPips replies, I’ll publish the reply on that page, unedited.

GREAT COUSTOMER SUPPORT . FOLLOW THE RULE. GET THE PAYMENT. FAST PAYMENT SYSTEM. IN CRYPTO. AND A LOT OF OPTIONS IN ACCOUNTS SIZES. BEGINNER TO PRO TRADERS. GIVE A TRY..

FundingPips approved my Phase 1 and I then completed Phase 2. Funded access was refused over an earlier Phase 1 trade allegedly involving reverse trading. The report they supplied explicitly says “Trades: 1”. My gold buy and another trader’s sell opened 2 minutes 16 seconds apart. They closed 4 seconds apart during a sharp price move. That is one timing comparison, not a demonstrated pattern of coordinated trading. I repeatedly challenged that inference, but the final rejection did not supply the additional pattern or explain how coincidence had been ruled out. I completed both phases and was denied funded access on evidence I consider wholly inadequate.

I bought an account $5k two step standard account via bank transfer from my Nigeria bank Guarantee trust bank, called my bank customer support and they said the transfer was successful but fundingpips said the transfer was not successful.

This propfirm begins to close account from his clients , whenever you reach a master account or your payout cycle they will create a cid rule to close your account or they will say you give us fake documents which they already approved you , that means we won't give you the payout I've seen many people on x complaining CID RULE AND KYC some of them they reached 5 payout+ and they said you gave us fake documents which is lie how is that possible? Mine was; they gave me a fake CID report which is lie they told me that i violated their terms or rules ,why they don't close at first place when the master account was on boarding? Why do they allowed me to make a first payout if my case its true they only paid the people who has a community because they afraid them

Funding Pips is a prop firm that offers traders an opportunity to trade with simulated funded accounts through its evaluation programs. What I appreciate about Funding Pips is its user-friendly platform, different challenge options, and the opportunity to work towards larger trading accounts without investing huge personal capital. The overall experience is quite impressive. The dashboard is easy to navigate, account information is accessible, and the evaluation process provides a structured environment for traders to demonstrate their skills. What I Like About Funding Pips - Multiple challenge options to suit different trading styles. - User-friendly dashboard and account management. - Clear evaluation structure. - Opportunity to earn performance-based rewards. - Suitable options for traders looking to develop discipline and consistency. Funding Pips is worth considering if you are serious about trading and understand the importance of risk management, discipline, and consistency. However, always read the latest trading rules, drawdown limits, payout conditions, and terms before purchasing any challenge. Remember, a prop firm challenge is not a guaranteed way to make money. Your trading skills and risk management matter the most. Happy Trading!