FTMO vs FundedNext
Their flagship 2-Steps are near-twins on every rule that governs losing: the same 5% daily limit, breaching which ends the attempt at both, and the same 10% static drawdown. FundedNext asks 13% total profit where FTMO asks 15%, so its difficulty ratio is lower — 1.30 against 1.50 — and at 1% risk per trade the computed odds land close together: roughly 78% against 73% chance of a losing streak ending it.
What actually separates the two firms is commercial, and all of it is published: what an attempt costs and in which currency, when the fee comes back, and how much of the profit is yours. None of it sits on the rules page, and the rules page is where everyone looks.
The flagship 2-Steps, rule by rule
| Rule | FTMO 2-Step | FundedNext Stellar 2-Step |
|---|---|---|
| Phases | 2 | 2 |
| Profit target per phase | 10% + 5% | 8% + 5% |
| Total profit target | 15% | 13% |
| Maximum daily loss | 5% | 5% |
| Breaching the daily limit | Ends the attempt | Ends the attempt |
| Maximum overall loss | 10% | 10% |
| Drawdown type | Static | Static |
| Difficulty ratio | 1.50 | 1.30 |
| Minimum trading days | 4 | 5 |
| Profit split | 90% | 95% |
| Fee refunded on passing | Yes | Yes |
| Fee, per account size | €89–€1,080 (EUR) | $44.99–$1,099.99 (USD) |
| Losses that end it at 1% risk | 5 | 5 |
| Chance a streak ends it at 1% risk | 78% | 73% |
Highlighted rows are where they differ. Every rule about losing — the caps, what breaching them does, the drawdown type — is identical; the differences are the road to the target and the commercial terms. The fee rows are in each firm’s own currency and are not comparable with each other.
FTMO — programme comparison and pricing — read 2026-08-05
FundedNext — CFD trading objectives — read 2026-08-05
Where the firms actually differ
The fee, and its currency. FTMO prices in euros — €89–€1,080 across the 2-Step’s 5 account sizes — and FundedNext in dollars, $44.99–$1,099.99 across 6, the promotional prices displayed on the date read. This page does not convert one into the other: a conversion imports an exchange rate that changes daily into figures read on one date, and the result would look precise while going stale by the hour. Every cost figure here stays in its own currency.
The refund, and when it arrives. Both 2-Step fees come back on passing — FTMO’s with the first payout, FundedNext’s with the first reward. That halves the cost of failure: on the $100K account, passing on the third attempt costs €878 at FTMO and $1,099.98 at FundedNext — two fees, not three, in each currency. The refund is where the 1-Steps split, below.
The split. 90% against 95%, both published maxima. Five points of every future payout — a difference that compounds for exactly as long as the funded account survives, and the only number here that favours the same firm on both programmes.
The 1-Steps read as opposites and compute as twins
| Rule | FTMO 1-Step | FundedNext Stellar 1-Step |
|---|---|---|
| Phases | 1 | 1 |
| Profit target per phase | 10% | 10% |
| Total profit target | 10% | 10% |
| Maximum daily loss | 3% | 3% |
| Breaching the daily limit | Ends the attempt | Ends the attempt |
| Maximum overall loss | 10% | 6% |
| Drawdown type | Trailing, end of day | Static |
| Difficulty ratio | 1.00 | 1.67 |
| Minimum trading days | None | 2 |
| Profit split | 90% | 95% |
| Fee refunded on passing | No | Yes |
| Fee, per account size | €79–€999 (EUR) | $49.49–$1,099.99 (USD) |
| Losses that end it at 1% risk | 3 | 3 |
| Chance a streak ends it at 1% risk | 97% | 97% |
Same target, same daily limit — then almost every remaining row differs, and the last row does not.
FTMO — programme comparison and pricing — read 2026-08-05
FundedNext — CFD trading objectives — read 2026-08-05
On paper these diverge hard. FTMO allows a 10% drawdown that trails your equity high at the end of each day; FundedNext allows 6%, static, measured from the starting balance and staying there. Their difficulty ratios sit at 1.00 and 1.67. FTMO’s fee is not refunded on passing — its own FAQ says so — where FundedNext’s comes back with the third reward.
And at 1% risk per trade the computed odds are identical: 97% and 97%. Both attempts are ended by the same 3% daily limit after 3 consecutive losses, and both targets need the same number of trades to reach — so the drawdown rows, the ones the pricing pages lead with, never get a vote. That is the finding: the rule set whose drawdown allowance is 1.67× the other’s produces the same chance of going home, and nothing either firm publishes side by side would tell you.
Where the identical figure errs, it errs in one direction. These probabilities apply each cap at its starting level — exactly right for FTMO’s trailing drawdown, pessimistic for FundedNext’s static one once profit is banked. And three attempts at the $100K size cost €1,497 at FTMO with no refund, against $1,139.98 net at FundedNext — with the caveat that FundedNext’s refund arrives only with the third reward on the funded account, so all three fees are carried until then. Per currency, as ever; the euro figure and the dollar figure are not comparable with each other.
At lower risk per trade
Cutting risk helps every programme, and it helps the 2-Steps sooner — their 5% daily limit absorbs 1.67× the losing run of the 1-Steps’ 3% at every size, because both are that cap divided by the same risk.
| Risk per trade | FTMO 2-Step | FundedNext 2-Step | FTMO 1-Step | FundedNext 1-Step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 78% | 73% | 97% | 97% |
| 0.5% | 19% | 16% | 69% | 69% |
| 0.25% | <1% | <1% | 9% | 9% |
Chance of a losing streak ending the attempt, at a 40% win rate taking 2R winners throughout. Change any of it on the challenge calculator.
What this comparison does not tell you
- · Assumes each trade is independent. Correlated positions — three majors against the dollar — lose together and count as one.
- · Assumes every trade risks the same amount. Raising size after a loss shortens the streak you can survive.
- · Uses your stated win rate. If that came from a demo account or a good month, the figure below is optimistic.
- · It applies each cap at its starting level: accurate for FTMO’s trailing 1-Step drawdown, pessimistic for the three static ones, so the static programmes are shown at their worst case.
- · Fees are never converted. FTMO prices in euros and FundedNext in dollars; a conversion would import a daily exchange rate into figures read on one date, so every cost on this page stays in its own currency and the two are never subtracted. FundedNext’s fees are the promotional prices displayed on the date read — the struck-through list prices, where shown, are recorded in the data.
- · It compares one thing — the chance of a losing streak ending the attempt before the target is reached — because that is what published rules can be made to answer. Payout reliability, execution, platform and instrument coverage are not in it.
The general lesson
Two firms this size publish rule sets that agree on everything that decides the outcome, so the choice between them turns on terms that sit nowhere near the rules page: the currency of the fee, the sentence saying when it comes back, the split. And where their rule sets do diverge — the 1-Steps’ drawdowns, a trailing 10% against a static 6% — the divergence turns out not to matter at all, because the daily limit they share ends the attempt first.
The same shape recurs across this site. FTMO’s own 1-Step against its 2-Step shows the better difficulty ratio losing badly. FundedNext against The5ers shows identical published rules more than twice apart on one sentence. Every single-phase challenge is ranked here, every programme we have read is here with its sources and read dates, and the arithmetic behind these figures is here.
Questions
- Which is better, FTMO or FundedNext?
- On the one thing published rules can answer — the chance a losing streak ends the attempt — their flagship 2-Steps are close: roughly 78% for FTMO against 73% for FundedNext at 1% risk per trade, because both end the attempt at the same 5% daily limit and FundedNext asks 13% total profit where FTMO asks 15%. What remains is commercial: FundedNext publishes a 95% split against FTMO's 90%, and on the 1-Steps FundedNext's fee is refunded where FTMO's is not. Payout reliability, platform and execution are not in the published rules and not in this comparison.
- Is FundedNext cheaper than FTMO?
- The two price lists are not in the same currency, so no honest single answer exists. FTMO prices in euros — €89–€1,080 across the 2-Step's 5 account sizes — and FundedNext in dollars, $44.99–$1,099.99 across 6 for its 2-Step, promotional prices as displayed on the date read. Subtracting one from the other imports an exchange rate that changes daily into figures that do not, so this page never does it. What can be compared is the refund: both 2-Step fees come back on passing — FTMO's with the first payout, FundedNext's with the first reward — FundedNext's 1-Step fee comes back with the third reward, and FTMO's 1-Step fee does not come back at all — which moves what three attempts cost by more than any sticker price.
- How do FTMO and FundedNext rules compare?
- The flagship 2-Steps are near-twins on every rule that governs losing: a 5% daily loss limit that ends the attempt and a 10% static drawdown at both. FTMO asks 15% total profit (10% + 5%) against FundedNext's 13% (8% + 5%). The 1-Steps look far apart — FTMO allows a 10% drawdown that trails end of day, FundedNext a 6% static one — and compute out identical at 1% risk, because both are ended by the same 3% daily limit after 3 consecutive losses, long before either drawdown is reached.
- Which one should I take?
- This page compares one thing: the chance of being stopped by a losing streak before reaching the target, computed from rules both firms publish. On that measure the 2-Steps are 78% against 73% and the 1-Steps identical at 97% — so the decision between these two firms rests on the commercial terms, which are published, and on payout reliability and platform, which are not and are not compared here.