FundedNext Stellar 1-Step vs The5ers Hyper Growth
Put the two pricing pages side by side and they describe the same product. A 10% profit target. A 6% maximum loss. A 3% daily limit. One phase, no time limit, a static drawdown. Every number a trader compares on is identical.
At 1% risk per trade they are not the same product at all. One fails roughly 97% of the time and the other roughly 43%, and the whole of that difference comes from a rule neither of them puts in the comparison table.
What each one publishes
| Rule | FundedNext Stellar 1-Step | The5ers Hyper Growth |
|---|---|---|
| Profit target | 10% | 10% |
| Maximum overall loss | 6% | 6% |
| Maximum daily loss | 3% | 3% |
| Drawdown type | Static | Static |
| Phases | 1 | 1 |
| Time limit | None | None |
| What breaching the daily limit does | Ends the attempt | Pauses until the next session |
| Minimum trading days | 2 | None published |
| Profit split | Not published | Up to 100% |
Highlighted rows are the only ones where the two disagree. The first of them decides everything below; the other two are real differences that do not affect the odds of passing.
FundedNext — CFD trading objectives — read 2026-08-02
The5ers — Hyper Growth — read 2026-08-02
The rule that decides it
FundedNext ends the attempt when the daily limit is breached. The5ers pause the account until the next session. That is the entire difference, and it changes which cap you are actually trading against.
At 1% risk, three losing trades in a day reach a 3% daily limit. On FundedNext that is the end — the 6% overall drawdown never comes into play, because you are out before you get near it. On The5ers it is the end of a bad day, and the only way to actually fail is the 6% overall, which takes 6 losses rather than 3.
Doubling the losses you can absorb does not halve the danger, it collapses it, because the probability of a losing run twice as long falls away much faster than linearly. That is where 97% and 43% come from.
And at lower risk
The gap narrows as risk per trade falls, because a smaller loss takes longer to reach either cap. It does not close.
| Risk per trade | Losses you survive | FundedNext | The5ers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 3 vs 6 | 97% | 43% |
| 0.5% | 6 vs 12 | 69% | 5% |
| 0.25% | 12 vs 24 | 9% | <1% |
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.
- · Cost is not compared here. The5ers publish a fee against an account size on the page we read; the FundedNext page we read publishes rules without them. Comparing one firm's price against a blank is worse than not comparing.
- · It says nothing about payouts, platform, instruments, or whether either firm pays reliably. It compares one thing — the chance of being stopped by a losing streak before reaching the target — because that is the thing that can be computed from published rules.
What follows from this
When two programmes advertise the same numbers, the daily limit rule is where the difference hides, and it is usually a sentence in the rules rather than a row in the table. Look for what breaching it does before comparing anything else.
Then check the same thing across every firm rather than these two. Every single-phase challenge is ranked side by side, and The published rules are here, each with its source and the date it was read, and the arithmetic behind these figures is here.
Questions
- Is FundedNext Stellar 1-Step the same as The5ers Hyper Growth?
- On every rule that governs how you can lose, yes: both publish a 10% profit target, a 6% maximum overall loss, a 3% maximum daily loss, a static drawdown, one phase and no time limit. They differ on what happens when the daily limit is breached — FundedNext ends the attempt, The5ers pause the account until the next session — and that single difference decides the outcome.
- Which is easier to pass?
- The5ers Hyper Growth, by a wide margin, and not because its rules are softer. At 1% risk per trade with a 40% win rate at 2R, a trader survives 3 consecutive losses on FundedNext and 6 on The5ers, because a paused account is not a failed one. Over the trades the 10% target needs, that is roughly a 97% chance of a fatal losing streak against 43%.
- Why does a pause matter so much?
- Because it converts a fatal event into a lost day. On a programme where the daily limit ends the attempt, the daily limit is the real constraint and the overall drawdown never comes into play — you are out long before you reach it. Where it only pauses, the overall drawdown is the only way to fail, so the number of losses you can absorb roughly doubles, and the probability of a run that long falls away much faster than linearly.
- Does the difficulty ratio show this?
- No, and that is the trap. Both programmes have the same difficulty ratio of 1.67 — total profit target divided by total drawdown allowance — because that measure only sees the published percentages. It is a useful number and it is not sufficient on its own. FTMO’s 1-Step has the best ratio of any programme we have read, 1.00, and one of the worst survival odds, for the same reason: a 3% daily limit that ends the attempt.