Institutional Funding vs FTMO.
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.
Institutional Funding
Ranking starts once both feeds have quoted the same instrument.
0 samples this session
See the IF profile
FTMO
Ranking starts once both feeds have quoted the same instrument.
0 samples this session
See the FTMO 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 | Institutional Funding | FTMO |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation phases | Not provided | 2 |
| Profit targets | Not provided | 10% / 5% |
| Daily loss limit | Not provided | 5% |
| Max drawdown | Not provided | 10% |
| Profit split | 70%, up to 100% | 80%, up to 90% |
| Payout schedule | Processed within 2 business days of request | On the 14th or any following day after the first placed trade on the account |
| Account sizes | $10k · $25k · $50k · $100k · $150k · $200k | $10k · $25k · $50k · $100k · $200k |
| Max funded capital | Not provided | $2000000.00 |
| Instruments | Forex, Indices, Commodities, Cryptocurrencies, Metals, Energies | Forex, Indices, Commodities, Stocks, Crypto |
| Founded | Not provided | 2015 |
Facts come from each firm's published terms (IF: institutional-funding.com homepage, FAQ and Participation Agreement, checked 2026-08-19 · 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). Anything unconfirmed says Not provided; terms change, confirm with the firm before purchasing.
Institutional Funding is the firm PropSpread's operators run; FTMO is the market's most established operator. That makes this the comparison where you should trust prose least and mechanism most, so here is the mechanism: both feeds run through the same pipeline, the same commission math, the same score engine and the same publication gate — and that gate currently approves none of IF's historical measurement windows, so IF's historical statistics are withheld on this site while FTMO's publish. The house firm gets the absence, not an exemption.
Quick verdict
On published commission IF is cheaper: 3.00 US dollars per lot round turn on forex against FTMO's 5.00. Whether that survives the spread is what the live table below computes, and it changes by instrument and session. Structurally the trade is track record against terms: FTMO has operated since the mid 2010s with a widely documented process; IF publishes a faster payout processing commitment and a lower commission but has the shorter public record — and the conflict of interest of appearing on its operator's own comparison site, which this page will not argue away.
PropSpread Score
Computed by the same published-methodology engine for both firms. Ownership is not an input.
Institutional FundingScore loads with the application.FTMOScore 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. If IF's side reads wider, that is the number this site exists to show, whoever owns it.
Cost per trade
Published commissions: IF's FAQ states 3.00 dollars round turn per lot on FX, metals and indices, checked August 19, 2026. FTMO charges 2.50 per lot per side on forex — 5.00 round turn — 0.0014 percent of notional on metals, and nothing on index CFDs, verified against FTMO's own symbol specifications in the 2026-08-08 audit. One asymmetry to know: the board currently models IF's index CFDs commission-free, which is lower than IF's own published schedule, so index cost figures for IF on this site understate the published charge. The example below is the whole deterministic cost at the current quote.
Estimated cost of one EUR/USD round turn at 1 lot
Evaluation and account structure
From the published records: FTMO runs its classic two-phase evaluation — 10 then 5 percent targets, 5 percent daily loss limit, 10 percent overall static drawdown, four-day minimum — on sizes from 10,000 to 200,000 dollars, with a split of 80 rising to 90 percent, payouts available from the 14th day after the first trade, and scaling to 2 million dollars. IF publishes sizes from 10,000 to 200,000 dollars including a 150,000 tier, a split of 70 rising to a 100 percent ceiling, payout requests processed within two business days, and a funded-phase consistency rule capping any single day at 20 percent of total profit. IF's challenge pricing and drawdown model are not recorded here, and the facts table renders those absences as "Not provided" rather than guessing.
- FTMO: the fuller published record — targets, limits, minimum days — and the longer operational history.
- IF: lower published commission, a two-business-day payout processing commitment, and a 100 percent split ceiling — with a consistency rule burst-style traders must read first.
- Recorded rules: FTMO records expert advisors as allowed and copy trading as not; IF records news trading as allowed, high-frequency and copy trading as not.
Which trader each suits
Traders for whom the commission line and payout speed decide, and who accept a younger firm with a thinner public record, will find IF's published terms aggressive. Traders paying for operational certainty across market cycles land on FTMO and know what the premium buys. A reader who discounts IF's side of this page because of who runs the site is doing exactly what the page recommends: check the measured table, check the absences, and let the numbers and the published records decide.
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 — including the one this site's operators run. 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
PropSpread runs Institutional Funding. Why publish this comparison at all?
Because the measurement is the product. Both firms pass through one pipeline, one score engine and one publication gate; the gate currently withholds IF's historical statistics because its windows are not yet verified, and this page says so. Publishing the house firm's absences is the honest version of this page; not publishing the comparison would just move the question somewhere less visible.
Which is cheaper, Institutional Funding or FTMO?
IF's published forex commission is 2 dollars per lot lower. Whether the all-in cost is lower depends on the spread each feed quotes at your hours, which the cost table computes live. On index CFDs, note the board currently understates IF's published commission.
Why does FTMO show more historical data than Institutional Funding here?
Historical statistics publish only from measurement windows that pass verification and bias checks. FTMO has approved windows; IF does not yet. Same gate, no exemption.
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.