FTMO vs FundedNext: Which prop firm in 2026?
FTMO is the premium safe choice; FundedNext is the value alternative. FTMO has the industry's only ASIC-regulated prop firm entity (AFSL 525757), the longest verified track record (USD 240m+ payouts since 2015), and the strongest reputation. FundedNext undercuts FTMO by 20 to 40 percent on challenge fees, scales profit splits up to 95 percent (vs FTMO's 90 percent ceiling), and offers a lower phase 1 target (8 percent vs FTMO's 10 percent). FundedNext is UAE-based, four years old, and lacks ASIC oversight. For Australian traders prioritising regulatory protection, FTMO. For cost-conscious traders willing to take more regulatory risk for better economics, FundedNext.
Quick verdict: Which should you choose?
Choose FTMO if:
- You are an Australian resident wanting ASIC regulatory oversight
- Track record longevity matters to you (10+ years, USD 240m+ payouts)
- You want the industry-reference firm with the most data behind it
- Australian-payer tax simplicity matters more than cost optimisation
- You prefer paying USD 540 for verified institutional infrastructure
Choose FundedNext if:
- Challenge cost matters (20 to 40 percent cheaper than FTMO)
- You want the higher 95 percent profit split ceiling
- You want the lower 8 percent phase 1 target
- You want the option of crypto payouts (USDT, USDC, in hours)
- You can accept UAE regulation rather than ASIC
At-a-glance comparison
| Feature | FTMO | FundedNext | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 | FTMO |
| Headquarters | Prague (FTMO Australia: Sydney) | Dubai, UAE | Tie |
| Australian regulation | ASIC AFSL 525757 | None | FTMO |
| Verified cumulative payouts | USD 240m+ | Hundreds of millions USD | FTMO |
| Trustpilot reviews | 41,000+ (mid-high 4s) | 65,000+ (4.5) | Different scale, both strong |
| Phase 1 profit target | 10% | 8% (Stellar) | FundedNext |
| Phase 2 profit target | 5% | 5% (Stellar) | Tie |
| Daily drawdown | 5% | 5% | Tie |
| Max drawdown | 10% | 10% | Tie |
| Profit split (starting) | 80% | 80% | Tie |
| Profit split (ceiling) | 90% after scaling | 95% after scaling | FundedNext |
| Challenge fee (10K account) | USD 89 | ~USD 60-70 | FundedNext |
| Challenge fee (100K account) | USD 540 | ~USD 380-400 | FundedNext |
| Challenge fee refund | On first payout | On first payout | Tie |
| Payout cycle | On demand (post first 30 days) | Bi-weekly default (Stellar) | FTMO (flexibility) |
| Payout speed | 1-2 business days (wire) | 1-3 business days (wire), hours (crypto) | FundedNext (crypto) |
| Payout methods | Wire, Wise, Skrill | Wire, crypto (USDT/USDC), e-wallets | FundedNext (breadth) |
| Active affiliate (cloaked) | Yes | Yes | (Disclosure note) |
| Overall rating | 4.9 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 | FTMO |
Regulation: FTMO's ASIC advantage
This is the single biggest difference between the two firms for Australian residents.
FTMO operates a dedicated Australian entity, VRGK Tech Pty Ltd, holding ASIC Australian Financial Services Licence 525757. This is full-scope ASIC authorisation, not an offshore regulatory token. The licence carries the same regulatory framework that applies to Australian banks, super funds, and ASIC-regulated forex brokers. Australian clients have AFCA dispute resolution access if a complaint escalates, and FTMO Australia's payouts come from an Australian payer rather than an offshore entity (which simplifies tax reporting).
FundedNext is regulated in the United Arab Emirates, not Australia. Dubai's financial services regulators do exist (Dubai Financial Services Authority, Securities and Commodities Authority) but they have no jurisdiction over Australian client disputes, no AFCA equivalent for Australian residents, and offer no Australian regulatory recourse if something goes wrong.
This does not mean FundedNext is unsafe. The firm has 65,000+ Trustpilot reviews averaging 4.5, documented payouts in the hundreds of millions of USD, and no credible widespread payout failure pattern across four years of operation. But the regulatory protection an Australian client has at FundedNext is structurally weaker than at FTMO Australia.
For Australian traders weighing this trade-off: the value of ASIC regulation is most apparent in the worst-case scenarios that rarely happen. A firm in good standing operates fine without it. A firm under stress (insolvency, ownership change, dispute) is where regulatory protection earns its keep. FTMO's ASIC entity provides that backstop. FundedNext does not.
Challenge fees compared
FundedNext's Stellar Challenge undercuts FTMO across the account size spectrum. Indicative pricing at April 2026:
| Account size | FTMO Challenge | FundedNext Stellar | FundedNext discount |
|---|---|---|---|
| USD 10,000 | USD 89 | ~USD 60-70 | ~25-33% cheaper |
| USD 25,000 | USD 184 | ~USD 130-150 | ~20-30% cheaper |
| USD 50,000 | USD 287 | ~USD 200-230 | ~20-30% cheaper |
| USD 100,000 | USD 540 | ~USD 380-400 | ~25-30% cheaper |
| USD 200,000 | USD 1,080 | ~USD 700-800 | ~25-35% cheaper |
What does the discount actually save?
For a trader who passes their first attempt at a 100K challenge: USD 140 saving. Marginal.
For a trader who fails twice and passes the third attempt at a 100K challenge: USD 420 saving across three attempts. Meaningful.
For a trader running multiple account sizes simultaneously to diversify across firms: thousands per year. Material.
Both firms refund the challenge fee on the first successful payout after reaching funded status. The fee is effectively a refundable deposit if you succeed. The cost difference matters most for traders who attempt and fail multiple times before passing (which is the statistical norm: most prop firm challenges fail).
Profit splits and scaling
Both firms start traders at 80 percent profit split on the first funded payout. The scaling differs.
| Stage | FTMO | FundedNext (Stellar) |
|---|---|---|
| First payout | 80% | 80% |
| After consistent performance | 90% | 90% |
| After further scaling milestones | (no further increase) | 95% |
The 95 percent ceiling on FundedNext is a real economic advantage for traders who reach scale. On a USD 5,000 monthly profit, the difference between 90 percent (FTMO ceiling) and 95 percent (FundedNext ceiling) is USD 250 per month, or USD 3,000 per year, on a single account. For traders who treat prop firm income as a serious revenue stream, the ceiling matters.
That said: most challenge participants never reach the scaling tiers required to hit the 95 percent ceiling. The scaling milestones at FundedNext require sustained performance over multiple reward cycles. For traders who succeed but at modest volume, both firms cap practically around 80 to 90 percent for many years.
Phase rules and profit targets
The headline rule difference: phase 1 profit target.
| Rule | FTMO | FundedNext (Stellar) |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (Challenge) profit target | 10% | 8% |
| Phase 2 (Verification) profit target | 5% | 5% |
| Daily drawdown limit | 5% | 5% |
| Maximum drawdown limit | 10% | 10% |
| Minimum trading days (per phase) | 4 | 5 |
| Maximum challenge duration | 30 days (Phase 1), 60 days (Phase 2) | 30 / 60 days similar |
| News trading allowed | Yes (with restrictions) | Yes (with restrictions) |
| EA / algorithmic trading | Yes | Yes |
| Weekend holding | Permitted | Permitted |
Why the 8 vs 10 percent target matters
A 30-day window to make 10 percent (FTMO) versus 8 percent (FundedNext Stellar) is not a 20 percent reduction in difficulty. It is closer to a 30 to 40 percent reduction in failure probability for most traders, because the variance is similar across both targets but the required mean return drops substantially.
For traders who target 1 to 2 percent risk per trade and produce modest expectancy, the 8 percent target is materially more achievable in a 30-day window than 10 percent. For aggressive traders running 3 to 5 percent risk, both targets are reachable but FundedNext is still more forgiving.
This is the rule difference that most affects whether a given trader passes their first attempt.
Payouts: process and reliability
Both firms have established payout reliability. The differences are in cycle frequency and payout method breadth.
FTMO
- Payout cycle: on demand after the first 30 days post funding
- Speed: 1 to 2 business days
- Methods: bank wire, Wise, Skrill
- Track record: USD 240m+ verified public payout ledger since 2015
- Public disclosure: full ledger available on the FTMO website
- Refund policy: challenge fee refunded on first successful payout
FundedNext
- Payout cycle: bi-weekly by default on the Stellar Challenge (other models offer monthly)
- Speed: 1 to 3 business days via wire, hours via crypto
- Methods: bank wire, USDT, USDC, various e-wallets
- Track record: hundreds of millions USD reported cumulatively (less granularly disclosed than FTMO)
- Public disclosure: aggregate figures, not full ledger
- Refund policy: challenge fee refunded on first successful payout
The crypto payout option at FundedNext is genuinely faster than anything FTMO offers (hours vs days). For traders who value speed and are comfortable with crypto, this is a real benefit. The trade-off is Australian crypto tax treatment: USDT and USDC payouts are CGT events at receipt for Australian residents (see the crypto CGT calculator for the math), which adds tax accounting complexity that wire payouts do not.
FTMO's public payout ledger remains the most transparent in the industry. No competitor publishes the equivalent record with the same granularity. This matters for new traders evaluating prop firm credibility.
Track record and reputation
FTMO has a decade of operations through multiple full market cycles (the 2015-2018 crypto boom and bust, the 2018 forex volatility crunch, COVID 2020, 2022 inflation cycle, 2023 banking stress). It has not had a credible widespread payout failure across that period.
FundedNext has four years (2022 launch). It has passed 2022's volatility, 2023's banking stress, and ongoing operations through 2024 to 2026. It has not had a credible widespread payout failure across that period either.
The longer track record gives FTMO an evidentiary advantage. FundedNext's record is shorter but clean. For traders who weight longevity heavily, FTMO wins. For traders who weight current operational metrics (Trustpilot 4.5 at 65,000 reviews is genuinely strong), FundedNext is competitive.
Who wins on specific use cases
Australian resident prioritising regulation
Winner: FTMO. ASIC AFSL 525757 is structurally unique. FundedNext has no Australian regulatory backstop.
Cost-conscious trader running multiple challenge attempts
Winner: FundedNext. 20 to 40 percent cheaper challenges, real saving across multiple attempts before a pass.
Trader who has scaled past the 90 percent profit split
Winner: FundedNext. Only firm offering the 95 percent ceiling.
Trader who fails 10 percent profit targets but can hit 8 percent
Winner: FundedNext. Lower phase 1 target is the deciding factor.
Trader who values payout speed over everything
Winner: FundedNext. Crypto payouts in hours beat any FTMO option.
New trader evaluating prop firm credibility from first principles
Winner: FTMO. USD 240m+ verified public payout ledger plus a decade of operations is more evidence than any competitor offers.
Trader who wants Australian-payer tax simplicity
Winner: FTMO. FTMO Australia is an Australian corporate entity. FundedNext is UAE-based, requiring offshore-payer tax treatment.
Trader running both firms simultaneously
Both work, no conflict. Different rules, different infrastructure, no common ownership. Diversifies firm-specific risk.
Final recommendation
If you are an Australian resident and you want regulatory protection above all else, choose FTMO. The ASIC AFSL is structurally unique and worth the price premium for traders who care about regulatory backstops.
If cost is the primary constraint and you can accept UAE regulation, choose FundedNext. The 20 to 40 percent fee discount is real, the 95 percent profit split ceiling is unique, and the 8 percent phase 1 target is materially more passable than FTMO's 10 percent.
If you have the capital to fund both: run challenges at both. They are non-conflicting and the diversification reduces firm-specific risk. Many serious prop traders maintain accounts across multiple firms for exactly this reason.
For traders evaluating the broader landscape (The 5%ers, FunderPro, MyFundedFX, MFF Topstep, etc.), see the best prop trading firms for Australians pillar guide. For the value-tier head-to-head between FundedNext and The 5%ers specifically, see The 5%ers vs FundedNext.
FTMO
ASIC AFSL 525757. USD 240m+ verified payouts. Industry-reference rules and execution.
FundedNext
20-40% cheaper than FTMO. 95% profit split ceiling. 8% phase 1 target. Crypto payouts available.
Frequently asked questions
FTMO is the better overall choice for Australian traders prioritising regulation and track record. FTMO Australia operates under ASIC AFSL 525757 (the only challenge-based prop firm with ASIC authorisation), has been operating since 2015, and has distributed over USD 240 million in verified public payouts. FundedNext is the better choice for cost-conscious traders willing to accept UAE regulation for 20 to 40 percent cheaper challenges, a higher profit split ceiling (up to 95 percent vs FTMO's 90 percent), and a lower phase 1 target (8 percent vs 10 percent).
Yes, by 20 to 40 percent on equivalent account sizes. FTMO charges approximately USD 540 for a 100K challenge; FundedNext charges around USD 380 to 400 for the same account size on the Stellar Challenge. The discount widens at smaller account sizes (FTMO 10K = USD 89; FundedNext 10K = around USD 60 to 70). Across multiple challenge attempts, the saving is material. Both refund challenge fees on the first successful payout.
Yes. FTMO Australia operates under ASIC AFSL 525757 via VRGK Tech Pty Ltd, making it the only challenge-based prop firm with dedicated Australian financial services regulation. Australian residents trading through FTMO Australia have ASIC oversight, AFCA dispute resolution access, and Australian corporate tax reporting on payouts. FundedNext is regulated in the United Arab Emirates, not Australia.
FTMO offers an 80 percent profit split from your first funded payout, scaling to 90 percent after consistent performance over multiple reward cycles. FundedNext's Stellar Challenge offers an 80 percent profit split that scales to 90 percent and then to 95 percent after additional scaling milestones. The 95 percent ceiling on FundedNext is a real economic advantage for high-volume successful traders.
FTMO's standard Challenge requires a 10 percent profit in phase 1. FundedNext's Stellar Challenge requires 8 percent in phase 1. Both require 5 percent in phase 2 (Verification on FTMO, Stellar phase 2 on FundedNext). FundedNext's lower phase 1 target reduces the probability of failure for many traders, since the difference between 8 and 10 percent across a typical 30-day window is meaningful.
FTMO processes payouts within 1 to 2 business days via bank wire. FundedNext on the Stellar Challenge defaults to a bi-weekly reward cycle with payouts processing within 1 to 3 business days via wire, or within hours via crypto (USDT, USDC). FundedNext's crypto payout option is faster than any FTMO option but introduces crypto-related tax accounting on the Australian side.
Many serious prop traders run challenges at multiple firms simultaneously to diversify firm-specific risk and increase total funded capital across the industry. FTMO and FundedNext are non-conflicting (different rules, different infrastructures, no common ownership). Trading the same strategy at both is operationally feasible but requires discipline to track each account's drawdown and target separately.
About this analysis
