
Marcus D.
“I asked support a blunt question about trailing drawdown before I spent a cent. A screenshot and a number came back in twenty minutes. Eleven months later that is still how every conversation goes.”
★★★★★
Rated 4.8 out of 5 across 1,436 trader ratings. The critical ones are published alongside the positive ones.

Marcus D.
“I asked support a blunt question about trailing drawdown before I spent a cent. A screenshot and a number came back in twenty minutes. Eleven months later that is still how every conversation goes.”
★★★★★

Lena K.
“Requested my third payout at two in the afternoon and it was approved before dinner. I had genuinely planned for a week of chasing emails.”
★★★★★

Ari S.
“Failed the first evaluation on a stubborn short. The breach report named the minute and the level, which is more honesty than I expected. Reset, fixed the habit, funded on the second attempt.”
★★★★☆

Devin R.
“The part I value is boring: nothing has changed since I joined. Same limit, same split, same portal. No surprise announcement on a Sunday night.”
★★★★★

Priya N.
“Scaling stepped up automatically at the balance milestone. No call, no form, no sales pitch about upgrading anything.”
★★★★★

Tomas W.
“Flat before the close is strict and it cost me a decent overnight idea twice. Fair enough, it is written plainly, I just wish it were optional at larger sizes.”
★★★★☆
Three themes repeat across the feedback: payouts arrive when they are supposed to, support answers with specifics, and the rules do not move. The most common criticism is equally consistent, and it is the flat-before-close requirement.
Ratings come from funded traders who have completed at least one payout cycle. Negative feedback is published unedited unless it contains account numbers or personal data.
Your turn
Start an evaluation, reach a payout and judge the firm from the inside.
Get FundedNo hidden activation fee. Cancel your subscription any time.