FTMO vs FundedNext.
Measured spreads and estimated one-lot round-turn costs for both firms, read from the same live feed as the board. The tighter side is marked per instrument as the samples land.
FTMO
Ranking starts once both feeds have quoted the same instrument.
0 samples this session
See the FTMO profile
FundedNext
Ranking starts once both feeds have quoted the same instrument.
0 samples this session
See the FNext profileSpread and cost, instrument by instrument
Current spread, session average and the all-in cost of one lot at each firm, read from the same feed as the board. The tighter side is marked per row as the samples land.
No samples for this matchup yet
Warming up · 0 of 5 samples. The comparison fills itself in from the feed as the first snapshots land, and no cell is ever pre-filled with an invented number.
Verified firm facts, side by side
| Fact | FTMO | FundedNext |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation phases | 2 | 2 |
| Profit targets | 10% / 5% | 8% / 5% |
| Daily loss limit | 5% | 5% |
| Max drawdown | 10% | 10% |
| Profit split | 80%, up to 90% | 80%, up to 95% |
| Payout schedule | On the 14th or any following day after the first placed trade on the account | Every 14 days |
| Account sizes | $10k · $25k · $50k · $100k · $200k | $6k · $15k · $25k · $50k · $100k · $200k |
| Max funded capital | $2000000.00 | $4000000.00 |
| Instruments | Forex, Indices, Commodities, Stocks, Crypto | CFDs, Futures |
| Founded | 2015 | 2022 |
Facts come from each firm's published terms (FTMO: https://ftmo.com/en/; https://ftmo.com/en/comparison-table/; https://ftmo.com/en/trading-objectives/; https://ftmo.com/en/how-it-works/, checked 2026-08-20 · FUNDEDNEXT: https://fundednext.com/; https://fundednext.com/cfds; https://fundednext.com/reward; https://fundednext.com/company, checked 2026-08-20). Anything unconfirmed says Not provided; terms change, confirm with the firm before purchasing.
FTMO is the market's most established operator, running its two-phase evaluation since the mid 2010s from Prague. FundedNext is a 2022 challenger that grew by publishing aggressively transparent pricing and running several models at once. Both are sampled continuously by PropSpread, so the tables below settle the cost question with the feed rather than with adjectives.
Quick verdict
On published forex commission the two are level at 5.00 US dollars per lot round turn, so the all-in cost order comes down to whichever feed quotes tighter on your instrument at your hours — which changes, and the table below computes it live rather than declaring it. The structural decision is clearer: FTMO sells operational maturity and a documented track record; FundedNext sells published pricing, permissive rules and a higher scaling ceiling. Neither firm sweeps this page, and a comparison that crowns one without qualification is selling something.
PropSpread Score
Computed by the same engine for both firms across seven weighted factors; no commercial relationship touches it.
FTMOScore loads with the application.FundedNextScore 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. A firm can lead on majors and trail on gold in the same minute, which is why this is a table and not a sentence.
Cost per trade
On forex the published commissions are identical: FTMO charges 2.50 dollars per lot per side, FundedNext 5.00 per lot round turn on its Stellar evaluations — the same 5.00 total. Metals split them: both charge a percentage of traded notional, FTMO at 0.0014 percent and FundedNext at 0.0016, so FTMO's published gold commission is slightly lower at any gold price. Neither charges commission on index CFDs. FundedNext's Stellar Instant model charges 7.00 on forex, so the model you buy matters. All figures from each firm's own published schedule, read during the 2026-08-08 commission audit; the total below is what actually leaves the account.
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. With level forex commissions, the gap between these two is pure spread — check it at the hours you actually trade.
Evaluation and account structure
Both run a two-phase evaluation with a 5 percent daily loss limit and a 10 percent overall static drawdown, per their published records as checked on August 20, 2026. The published differences are real: FTMO targets 10 then 5 percent with a four-day minimum; FundedNext targets 8 then 5 with a five-day minimum. FundedNext publishes its full fee ladder, from 59.99 dollars at the 6,000 size to 1,099.99 at 200,000, refundable with cheaper resets — FTMO's challenge pricing is on its own site but not recorded here. FTMO's split runs 80 to 90 percent with scaling to 2 million dollars; FundedNext's runs 80 to 95 with scaling to 4 million. FTMO pays out from the 14th day after the first trade on the account; FundedNext runs a 14-day cycle with the first payout from day 21.
- Both: two phases, static drawdown, published targets, MetaTrader platforms.
- FTMO: lower published metals commission, the longer track record, a four-day minimum, and extensive process documentation.
- FundedNext: a lower first-phase target, a published fee ladder with refunds and reset pricing, a 95 percent split ceiling, and the higher scaling ceiling at 4 million.
Where FTMO leads
- Longevity: operating since the mid 2010s with a widely documented payout history across several market cycles.
- A slightly lower published metals commission at 0.0014 percent of notional versus 0.0016.
- Process maturity: evaluation flow, dashboard and support documentation newer firms are still building.
Where FundedNext leads
- Pricing transparency: the full published fee ladder, refundability and reset pricing are recorded facts on this site, not marketing claims.
- An easier published first phase, 8 percent versus 10, and a higher split ceiling at 95 percent.
- The higher published scaling ceiling: 4 million dollars versus 2 million.
- Permissive recorded rules: hedging, copy trading, news and weekend holding all recorded as allowed.
Which trader each suits
With forex commissions level, cost-sensitive traders should let the measured spread table decide, at their own hours. Traders who want a firm that has survived multiple cycles and pays a premium for that certainty land on FTMO. Traders optimizing the evaluation itself — a softer first target, published fees, a bigger scaling ceiling — get more of that in writing from FundedNext. If the cost table shows the two within cents on your instrument, the decision is structural, not spread-driven.
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 FundedNext?
Their published forex commissions are identical at 5 dollars per lot round turn, so the cheaper desk is whichever quotes the tighter spread on your instrument at your hours. The cost table on this page computes that live; check it when you trade, not when a review was written.
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.
How current are the account terms described here?
Structural facts come from each firm's published record with a checked date, August 20, 2026 at this writing. Terms change; verify them on the firms' own sites before purchasing.
Three rules for a fair comparison.
The table above says what these two firms cost right now. These three rules keep that answer from being read as more than it is.
A firm advertising raw spreads with a commission can cost more or less than a firm with all-in pricing, depending on the instrument. The per-lot figures above add each firm's published round-turn commission to the sampled spread, so the two columns are directly comparable.
Any firm can look tight for a minute. The session average behind each figure shows how the firm has priced across the whole sampling session on this page, and the rolling window behind the board ranking smooths single-tick outliers in both directions.
Evaluation rules, drawdown definitions, payout schedules and platform stability matter too, and none of them appear in a spread table. Use the profiles linked above for the published commission models, and treat this page as the execution-cost half of the decision.
Full sampling and ranking rules, including what happens when a feed goes quiet, are on the methodology 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.