TL;DR
FTMO's 10% static drawdown does not move once the eval starts; FundingPips Zero's 5% trailing drawdown follows your highest balance. Static is stricter on losing accounts; trailing is stricter on profitable ones. Strategies that take wide partial profits suffer more on trailing; strategies that work out of an initial drawdown suffer more on static.
Every comparison of FTMO Phase 1 and FundingPips Zero starts the same way: "FTMO is 10%, FundingPips is 5%, so FundingPips is twice as strict." That sentence is wrong about half the time, because the two firms use different drawdown references. FTMO anchors the 10% to your starting balance and never moves it. FundingPips anchors the 5% to your highest balance reached, and re-anchors every time you turn a new profit high. The result: which firm is "stricter" depends on the shape of your equity curve, not the headline percentage.
How the two rules differ in practice
Run a simple thought experiment. A trader opens both an FTMO Phase 1 account and a FundingPips Zero challenge with $100,000 each. Over four weeks the strategy generates a 4% gross profit on FTMO and 4% on FundingPips, but the path matters. Suppose the equity curve climbs from 100k → 108k → 104k → 108k → 104k → 100k. At FTMO the floor stays at $90,000 for every day of the eval, the trader is never within $10,000 of breach. At FundingPips the floor steps up to $108k × 0.95 = $102,600 the moment $108k is hit. The pullback to $104k is fine, but the second pullback to $100k breaches the trailing floor by $2,600.
Same gross profit, identical execution, different firm-level outcome. The strategy passed FTMO and failed FundingPips on a curve that looked identical on the chart.
When static drawdown is stricter
Static drawdown punishes traders who fall into a deep early drawdown and then recover. Imagine an account that drops to $93,000 in week one (drawdown of $7k against an FTMO $10k cushion) and then climbs back to $108k over weeks two through four. At FTMO this account is fine, the floor was $90k all month. At FundingPips, the deep-drawdown week left a $7k buffer too, but the recovery to $108k re-anchors the floor to $102,600, comfortably above the prior $93k low. The same trader who would have busted FTMO at $90k passes FundingPips, because the trailing reset matters more than the early hole.
This is why "FTMO is easier" or "FundingPips is harder" oversimplifies. The right framing is: does your strategy front-load the drawdown or back-load it? Mean-reversion strategies that work out of an initial hole favour trailing-DD firms. Trend-following strategies that compound into a paper-profit peak favour static-DD firms.
The numbers across all six supported firms
For reference, here are the drawdown rules across the supported firm set, as audited in the most recent quarterly firm-rule changelog:
| Firm | Drawdown % | Reference | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| FundingPips Zero | 5% | Trailing (highest balance) | Strictest on profitable accounts |
| FTMO Phase 1 | 10% | Static (starting balance) | Easier for back-loaded recoveries |
| MyForexFunds | 8% | Static | Middle ground; relaunch context applies |
| Apex Trader Funding | 5% | Trailing | Futures-only; tight on profit growth |
| The5ers High Stakes | 10% | Static | Pair with on-demand payouts |
| GetLeveraged Turbo | 6% | Trailing | Strict like FundingPips, slightly more cushion |
How to pick which rule to optimise for
The decision rule we use on Glitch Executor's firm-rule-aware backtester is simple: run the strategy against both rule sets. If the historical equity curve has its max-drawdown bar in the first 30% of the eval window, static-DD firms are mathematically friendlier. If the curve only draws down after compounding above the starting balance, trailing-DD firms are friendlier. Strategies that don't draw a clear preference (i.e., breach equally across both) need risk-per-trade reduction, not a firm change.
- Run the strategy through the firm-rule-aware backtester for both FTMO and FundingPips.
- Compare the verdict + first-breach day. If FTMO passes and FundingPips fails (or vice versa), the asymmetry is genuine.
- If both fail, halve risk-per-trade and re-run. If both pass, the strategy is robust to drawdown reference; pick on payout cycle + cost.
- If FTMO passes by < 1% margin, treat it as risky and re-test with adverse slippage modelling.
Practical workflow
On Glitch Executor, the firm-rule-aware backtest emits a per-firm verdict card showing pass/fail, first-breach day, and a drawdown waterfall against each firm's rules. Before the eval fee, run the same strategy against both FTMO Phase 1 and FundingPips Zero. The deterministic simulator surfaces the rule asymmetry directly, you don't have to do the curve-shape analysis by hand. The position-sizing calculator then suggests a lot size that respects both the picked firm's drawdown cushion and a conservative risk-per-trade.
Citations
FAQ
- Which is easier to pass overall, FTMO Phase 1 or FundingPips Zero?
- Neither, in absolute terms. FTMO is easier for strategies with early drawdowns that recover; FundingPips is easier for strategies that gradually compound. Run both in the backtester before committing.
- Does the FTMO static drawdown reset between Phase 1 and Phase 2?
- Yes, Phase 2 starts with a fresh $90,000 floor (on a $100k account), independent of where Phase 1 ended. The verification phase is effectively a separate eval against the same rule set.
- When does FundingPips re-anchor the trailing floor?
- On every end-of-day balance that exceeds the prior high. Intraday peaks do not move the floor, only closed-day equity closes do. Source: FundingPips Zero rule reference.
- Can I hold positions through high-impact news on either firm?
- FTMO permits it with a "dominant source" review at payout. FundingPips Zero enforces a strict ±2 minute blackout. Holding through news at FundingPips is an instant disqualification with no review.
- What's the right risk-per-trade for FundingPips Zero?
- 0.25–0.5% of balance, given the 3% daily cap and 5% trailing DD. The position-sizing calculator on Glitch Executor applies a firm-mode cap that prevents a single trade from eating more than ⅓ of the DD cushion regardless of your risk-per-trade input.
- How often do firm rules change?
- Roughly twice a year per firm, in our audit history. The Glitch Executor firm-rule changelog tracks every change quarterly with the source URL for each rule update.
Related firm rule pages
This post references the rule sets for the firms below. The full rule + payout brief for each is on its dedicated page.
How we maintain accuracy
Reviewed by Ryan Tran, Strategy Lead, Glitch Executor. Every quantitative claim cites a primary source; firm-rule values come from the firm-rule registry audited quarterly in this repo. No paid placements, no fabricated reviews.
Post last reviewed . Tier 1 surface last reviewed .
Written by Ryan Tran
Strategy Lead · Glitch ExecutorWrites on prop-firm rule modelling, backtest correctness, and why most "passed challenge" stories don't reproduce.
More from Ryan