FTMO vs FundingPips: spreads, costs and conditions compared
FTMO and FundingPips compared on measured spreads, estimated round-turn costs, PropSpread Scores and account structure, with live figures instead of copied marketing tables.
PropSpread ResearchPublished Aug 8, 20265 min read
FTMO and FundingPips sit at opposite ends of the same argument. FTMO is the established operator, running since the mid 2010s and positioned at the premium end of the market. FundingPips is the aggressive challenger that markets itself on lower entry pricing. Most comparisons settle this with adjectives. This one settles it with the feed: both firms are sampled continuously by PropSpread, so the tables below show the currently sampled figures for each, updating as snapshots land and labelled with their data source.
Quick verdict
There is no single winner, and a page that names one without qualification is selling something. The honest summary: the all-in cost order between these two changes by instrument and by session, which is why the cost table below computes it live instead of declaring it. FTMO's case rests on operational maturity and consistency rather than on being the cheapest ticket; FundingPips competes on price. Which matters more depends on your trade frequency and on how much operational track record is worth to you.
PropSpread Score
The score compares the firms across seven weighted factors, from community standing to technology. It is computed by the same engine for every firm and no commercial relationship touches it.
FTMOScore loads with the application.
FundingPipsScore loads with the application.Same engine, same methodology version, for both firms; input coverage and verification status are disclosed on the methodology page.
Spread comparison
Current spread and session average per instrument, from the same store the live board reads. The tighter side is marked as samples land. A firm can lead on majors and trail on gold in the same minute, which is exactly why this is a table and not a sentence.
Cost per trade
Spreads alone flatter whichever firm quotes tighter and charges more commission. The figures below add each firm's round-turn commission to the current sampled spread at one standard lot, which is the only fair unit for this pair: the total is what leaves the account, not the headline spread. On forex the two firms are level: FTMO publishes 5.00 US dollars per lot round turn and FundingPips publishes 5.00 per lot on its 2 Step Standard model. Both were read from each firm's own published terms on August 8, 2026. Both firms price other products differently, so verify the schedule for the account you would actually trade.
Estimated cost of one EUR/USD round turn at 1 lot
Scale it to your own month
Multiply the per-trade difference by your monthly trade count before drawing a conclusion. Twenty round turns a month makes a small per-trade gap trivial; two hundred makes it a serious line item. The cost calculator on the tools page runs this at your own size against live figures.
Evaluation and account structure
Both firms sell evaluation-based funding on MetaTrader platforms: pass published profit targets inside drawdown limits, receive a funded account, split the profits. FTMO uses its long-standing two-phase Challenge and Verification structure. FundingPips has marketed multiple evaluation tracks alongside its two-step route, with entry pricing it positions below the established firms. Fees, targets, drawdown definitions and split tiers for both are published on the firms' own sites and change from time to time, so verify the current rulebooks there rather than trusting any third-party table, including this one.
- Both: published profit targets, daily and overall loss limits, profit split after funding.
- FTMO: one evaluation structure, long operational history, extensive published process documentation.
- FundingPips: positions itself on aggressive entry pricing, with a shorter track record.
Where FTMO leads
- Track record: operating since the mid 2010s with a widely documented payout history.
- Process and support maturity that newer firms are still building.
- Consistency of platform and instrument coverage over time.
Where FundingPips leads
- Entry pricing: markets its evaluation fees as undercutting the established firms; check current pricing pages for the sizes you trade.
- Aggressive iteration on account variants and promotions.
- A price-first positioning that keeps competitive pressure on the incumbents.
Which trader each suits
High-frequency and cost-sensitive traders should weight the measured cost tables heavily, and those currently favour whichever firm is pricing tighter on the instruments they actually trade, checked at the times they actually trade. Traders who prioritize operational certainty, documented payouts and a firm that has survived multiple market cycles will find FTMO's premium easier to justify. If the cost table above shows the two within cents of each other on your instrument, the decision is not really about spreads at all.
How this comparison is made
Both feeds are sampled by the same pipeline on the same cadence, normalized to dollars per one-lot round turn with each firm's commission, and ranked over a rolling window. Neither firm can buy a better row. Figures are indicative snapshots, not tradable quotes. Commission schedules for FTMO, FundingPips and FundedNext are read from each firm's own published terms and were last checked on 2026-08-08. Institutional Funding carries a placeholder schedule that no published source confirms. Schedules vary by account type and product, so confirm the terms of the account you would actually trade. The data-source label on each module discloses whether the feed is demonstration or live account data.
Source: PropSpread market monitoring. Full sampling, normalization and ranking rules are on the methodology page.
Frequently asked
Which is cheaper, FTMO or FundingPips?
It depends on the instrument and the session. The cost table on this page adds each firm's sampled spread and configured commission together live, which is the only number worth comparing. Check it at the hours you trade, and verify each firm's current commission schedule for your account type.
Is this comparison sponsored by either firm?
No. Both firms are measured by the same pipeline, the ordering in every table comes from the data, and affiliate relationships, where they exist on this site, are labelled and never touch rankings.
Do these figures include slippage?
No. Slippage varies by account and market conditions and cannot be measured honestly from a spread feed, so the tables show the deterministic costs only: sampled spread plus the configured commission.
How current are the account rules described here?
Structural descriptions are kept general on purpose. Fees, targets, drawdown definitions and splits are published by the firms and change; verify them on the firms' sites before purchasing.
PropSpread Research publishes sampled data with its methodology and data-source labels attached, keeps editorial judgment separate from measurements, and labels commercial relationships where they exist. Corrections are welcome via the contact page.
This tool provides an indicative comparison of spreads and estimated execution costs based on periodic snapshots from connected data feeds and normalized trade assumptions. Displayed values are not tradable quotes and may differ from prices available on any provider's live accounts. Spreads vary by account type, server, liquidity conditions, and time of day. Competitor names and marks belong to their respective owners; no affiliation or endorsement is implied. The "Average Prop Firm" benchmark is a computed composite of sampled competitor feeds, not the published pricing of any specific firm. Cost estimates use a normalized trade scenario and do not constitute financial advice or a prediction of trading results.