Prop Firm Payout Rules, Measured

Every prop firm payout page on the internet quotes the same two numbers: the profit split and the processing time. Neither one tells you when the money arrives. What decides that is a chain of five gates — an eligibility date, a rule review, an approval, a processing window and a payment rail — and only the fourth is the one firms advertise. This page reads all five for sixteen firms, using their own published terms, and ranks them on what is written down rather than what is promised on a banner.

What a Prop Firm Payout Actually Is

A prop firm payout is not a withdrawal from an account you own. It is a performance-based reward, calculated on simulated profit, released by the firm once a list of conditions has been satisfied. Every one of those conditions is a place where the money can stop.

That distinction matters because it changes what you should be reading before you pay. A trader comparing firms on the size of the account or the headline percentage is comparing the two variables that almost never decide the outcome. The variables that decide it are the eligibility date, the qualifying-day count, the cycle you are locked into, and whether the firm has written down a consequence for paying you late.

The five gates between profit and money

Money moves through the same five gates at every firm on this page, in this order. First, eligibility: a minimum number of days must pass since your first trade. Second, qualifying days: a count of sessions that meet a definition the firm sets. Third, the request window: some firms accept a request any day, others only on a fixed cycle. Fourth, review: the firm checks the account against its rules. Fifth, transfer: the payment rail moves the funds.

Marketing addresses gate five. It advertises twenty-four hours, or twelve, or same day. Gates one to four are where the weeks go, and they are documented in help centres rather than on pricing pages.

Why this page exists

Sixteen firms are measured here on those five gates and nothing else. Not on account sizes, not on discount codes, not on how the dashboard looks. Every figure quoted comes from the firm’s own published material, and where a firm does not publish something, that absence is stated rather than filled in.

How This Prop Firm Payout Ranking Was Built

Ordering firms by advertised speed alone would put half a dozen of them in a tie and tell you nothing. The ranking on this page weighs four things, in descending importance.

1. Whether the commitment costs the firm something

A stated processing window is worth very little on its own. A stated window with a written penalty attached is a different instrument entirely, because breaking it has a price. Five firms here attach a penalty: Meridian Funded credits the next payout an extra 10% if the twelve-hour window is missed, while AquaFunded, Blue Guardian, FundedSquad and The Hyper Funding each commit a flat $1,000. Those written consequences carry the most weight in the order below.

2. When the first payment becomes possible

Speed after the request means little if the request itself cannot be made for two weeks. Eligibility dates are treated as part of payout performance, not as a separate topic.

3. What arrives, not what is quoted

A 90% split with a 2% processing fee deducted is not a 90% split. A split conditional on choosing a monthly cycle is not the same product as one available on demand. The ranking reads the split together with the cycle and the deductions attached to it.

4. Whether the terms are published at all

A firm that documents its payout policy in a help centre is easier to hold to it than one that states a number on a banner and nowhere else. Transparency is scored, and firms that publish less rank lower even when their advertised numbers look better.

No firm pays for its position. The order follows the weighting above, applied to published material only.

Processing Windows: Twelve Hours to Fourteen Days

The spread between the fastest and slowest published commitment on this page is not a few hours. It is closer to two orders of magnitude, and the firms at either end describe their timing in completely different units.

Read the unit, not the number

AquaFunded commits to 24 business hours. A request submitted on a Friday evening is not late until the middle of the following week. Meridian’s twelve-hour timer is explicitly a business-hours clock too, running 9am Monday to 5pm Friday London time and paused at weekends. Neither is hidden, and both are more honest than an unqualified “24 hours” that quietly means the same thing.

Averages are not commitments

Shark Funded reports an average reward time of seven hours and states that 99.99% are processed within 24. BrightFunded reports an average around 17 hours against a 24-hour commitment. Both are useful signals of operational capability. Neither is a promise you can hold the firm to, because an average has no floor.

The Penalty Clause: Which Guarantees Cost the Firm Money

A prop firm payout guarantee is only as good as the sentence that follows it. Any firm can write “fast payouts” on a banner. Very few write down what happens when they miss. That second sentence is the one worth comparing, because it converts a marketing claim into something with a cost attached.

The flat-fee model

Four firms use the same structure: a fixed $1,000 paid to the trader when the window is missed. AquaFunded states that if an approved payout is not processed within 24 business hours, it will add an extra $1,000. Blue Guardian words it as funds in 24 hours or an additional $1,000 added to the reward. FundedSquad promises rewards within 12 hours, otherwise a $1,000 bonus. The Hyper Funding sends approved payouts within 24 hours with a $1,000 credit if late.

A flat penalty has an obvious property: it is worth proportionally more on a small payout than a large one. On a $600 reward, a $1,000 penalty is larger than the payout itself. On a $40,000 reward it is a rounding error.

The proportional model

Meridian Funded takes the opposite approach. Its Reward Pledge pays within twelve hours or the next payout is automatically credited an extra 10%. The compensation scales with the amount at stake, which means it stays meaningful on large accounts where a flat $1,000 stops mattering. It also runs on the shortest published window on this page.

What none of them cover

Every one of these clauses is triggered by processing time after approval. None of them attaches a consequence to a slow review, a request denied on rule grounds, or an eligibility date that pushes the request itself two weeks out. The penalty protects gate five. Gates one to four remain entirely at the firm’s discretion, and that is where the real waiting happens.

First Payout Eligibility: The Wait Nobody Advertises

Between passing an evaluation and being allowed to ask for money, most firms insert a waiting period. It is rarely on the pricing page and it usually dwarfs the processing window that is.

The fourteen-day standard

A cluster of firms converge on the same figure. AquaFunded sets the first payout at 14 days after the first trade. Atlas Funded uses 14 days after the first trade on a funded account, then every 14 days after. The Hyper Funding opens withdrawals after 14 days on the 1-Step, then every 14 days, with a $50 minimum. Goat Funded Trader runs a bi-weekly cycle of every 14 days on both the 1 Step and Instant Funding GOAT models. Moneta Funded pays every 14 days on the 1-Step.

FTMO ties eligibility to the same clock in different words: a reward claim can be requested on the 14th day, or any following day, after the first placed trade on that account.

Where the wait is longer

X-Funded requires a minimum of five days on Instant Funding plus 30 active days before a withdrawal. That is the longest published gate on this page, and it sits on the product marketed as the fastest route to a funded account.

Where it is shorter or absent

Blue Guardian publishes on-demand payouts on its Instant CFD plan and up to weekly on the 1 Step Standard, with no minimum trading day row in its CFD tables. Goat Funded Trader sells a checkout add-on that releases a first reward at a 40% split after only three days of trading. Topstep allows same-day processing when the request lands before noon Central.

Do the arithmetic once

A firm advertising 24-hour payouts with a 14-day eligibility gate delivers your first money on day fifteen. A firm advertising 48 hours with no gate delivers it on day two. The advertised number is the smaller half of the equation almost every time.

Where 100% Splits Actually Come From

A prop firm profit split is quoted as a single percentage and almost never behaves like one.

Eight of the sixteen firms here advertise a 100% split somewhere. Almost none of them pay it by default, and the routes to it are entirely different products.

Route one: pay for it at checkout

AquaFunded pays 90% as standard and sells 100% as a paid add-on. Goat Funded Trader lists 80% on the 1 STEP model with an optional 100% split add-on, and its pricing configurator shows 90% with the same add-on available. X-Funded offers an add-on for up to 100% on top of its 80-then-90 structure. Meridian Funded starts at 90% and reaches 100% either through a Pro split add-on at checkout or through the Meridian Pro programme after sustained performance.

This is the honest version: the firm sells you the split as an upgrade, and you can price it against your expected volume before you buy.

Route two: earn it through scaling

BrightFunded raises the ratio to 90% through scaling, then to 100% from the third scale-up. FTMO’s 2-Step pays 80%, increasing to 90% under the Scaling Plan or Premium Programme, with the Scaling Plan requiring a minimum of four months. Topstep gives 100% of the first $10,000 of lifetime profits, then 90/10.

Route three: it is the default, with exceptions

FundedSquad is the outlier: 100% on most models, with Instant Pro at 70% and Instant Rapid at 75%. Atlas Funded publishes “up to 100%” with conditions and lists the top figure at the 2 Step funded stage. Tiger Funded and FXP both advertise up to 100%.

What to check before believing the number

Which plan it applies to, whether it costs extra, how long it takes to reach, and what cycle it forces. A 100% split that requires four months of scaling, a monthly withdrawal cadence and a paid upgrade is a real offer, but it is not the offer the banner implies.

Reward Cycles and Why They Change the Split

Most firms treat the payout cycle as a scheduling detail. Funding Pips treats it as a price, and in doing so makes explicit something the rest of the sector leaves implicit: the faster you want the money, the smaller the share you keep.

The clearest example in the sector

Funding Pips ties the split directly to the cycle chosen. On the Two Step plan the published options are weekly at 60%, bi-weekly at 80%, monthly at 100%, and on demand at 90%. The Zero plan runs bi-weekly at 95%; the 1 Step Flex bi-weekly at 85%; the Two Step Pro weekly at 80%.

Read that table honestly and the “up to 100% profit split” in the firm’s own site description is accurate and simultaneously the least attractive option for cash flow. You reach 100% by agreeing to be paid once a month. A trader who wants weekly money on the same plan keeps 60%.

Where the same trade-off is hidden

Other firms make the identical trade without labelling it. X-Funded pays 80% on the first payout and 90% from the second onwards on its challenges, so the effective split depends on how long you stay. BrightFunded starts at 80% and raises the ratio to 90% through scaling, then to keeping 100% from the third scale-up. Topstep runs a 90/10 split, with traders on the new dashboard keeping 100% of the first $10,000 of lifetime profits.

The question to ask

Not “what is the split” but “what is the split on the cycle I will actually use”. For a trader withdrawing monthly those are the same number. For a trader who wants weekly liquidity they can differ by forty points.

Fee Refunds: Cash, Credit, or Nothing

A prop firm fee refund is advertised as getting your money back, but the three firms quoting the highest numbers here return it in three different forms.

The evaluation fee is the only money in this relationship that is unambiguously yours before it is spent. Whether any of it comes back, and in what form, varies more than any other term on this page.

More than you paid

Two firms return more than 100%. Tiger Funded advertises a 200% fee refund: pass the challenge and get double the fee back with the first reward. Meridian Funded runs a 150% structure split across two currencies — 100% in cash on the first successful payout, returned to the original payment method, plus 50% in Meridian Credit usable on future evaluations, upgrades or add-ons, with the credit expiring six months after issuance.

The distinction between the two halves matters. Cash to the original card is money. Credit is a discount on future purchases from the same firm, which is worth its face value only if you intend to buy again inside six months.

Exactly what you paid

AquaFunded advertises the one-time fee as 100% refundable. FundedSquad advertises evaluations as 100% refundable. Goat Funded Trader states a one-time 100% refundable fee on its pricing page. FXP advertises a 100% refundable fee. BrightFunded sells the refund as an add-on: a 100% refund of the entry fee with the first withdrawal.

Conditionally, or not at all

FTMO splits it by product: the 1-Step entry fee is not refunded, while the 2-Step fee may be refunded with the first reward withdrawal, using the initial payment method. Funding Pips is the clearest negative on this page — its terms state that program fees are non-refundable once paid, except where required by applicable law, and that they do not earn interest.

The condition that applies to all of them

Every refund above is paid with a successful payout. None is a money-back guarantee on a failed challenge. If you never reach a withdrawal, the fee stays where it is at all sixteen firms.

Qualifying Days: The Quiet Gate on Every Withdrawal

Minimum trading days are usually presented as an evaluation rule. On several firms here they are also a payout rule, applied per cycle on the funded account, and that is the version that costs traders money.

Counted per payout, not once

Goat Funded Trader is the clearest case. The 1 STEP model requires three days in evaluation, and then three days per payout on the funded stage — four days for accounts purchased from 27 July 2026 — with each day needing at least 0.5% profit. The 2-Step Standard follows the same shape, moving from three to four days per payout from 25 July 2026. A trader who reaches their target in a single session still cannot withdraw until the day count is met.

Shark Funded applies no minimum during evaluation but requires a minimum of seven trading days before a payout can be requested on the Lite 1 Step. X-Funded adds 30 active days on Instant Funding before a withdrawal.

Days with a profit floor attached

Several firms will not count a day unless it produced a set return. AquaFunded requires three profitable days on One-Step models, each making at least 0.5% against the previous end-of-day balance. Moneta Funded requires three days per phase, each achieving 0.5%. Atlas Funded asks for five days per evaluation phase with a minimum 0.5% profit per day. The Hyper Funding is the most permissive of this group at 0.30% per day, five days on Standard and three on Pro. Topstep’s Express Funded Standard route asks for five winning days of $150 or more in net P&L.

Where the count is absent

FundedSquad states no minimum trading days on most accounts, with three on the 1 Step Pro. FXP advertises unlimited trading days with no minimum stated. Blue Guardian publishes no minimum trading days row in its CFD tables. Funding Pips applies no minimum on the funded Master phase for any plan, whatever the evaluation required. FTMO removes the rule on the funded account after a 2-Step.

Why it matters more than the split

A profit floor per qualifying day rewards grinding out small green sessions and penalises a strategy that fires rarely. It is the rule most likely to change how you trade in order to get paid, which is exactly the behaviour a funded account is supposed to avoid.

Payout Caps and Partial Withdrawals

Of all the prop firm withdrawal rules on this page, per-payout ceilings are the ones least likely to appear on a sales page and most likely to matter on a large account.

Passing an evaluation and generating profit does not always entitle you to ask for all of it. Some firms cap what can leave the account in a single request, and the cap is set in the terms rather than the marketing.

The clearest published ceiling

Topstep caps withdrawals at 50% of the balance, with a stated limit of $5,000 or $6,000 per payout depending on the account. A trader sitting on $20,000 of profit does not withdraw $20,000; they withdraw within those bounds and repeat. That is not a hidden term — it is published — but it changes the shape of a funded account from a lump sum into an instalment plan.

Caps that scale with behaviour

Blue Guardian markets its Standard futures plan on the basis that payout caps scale with consistency, up to $4,500 per payout. The ceiling rises as the account demonstrates the pattern the firm wants to see. It is a cap either way, but one with a documented route upward.

Floors, not just ceilings

The Hyper Funding sets a $50 minimum withdrawal on the 1-Step. A floor is far less restrictive than a ceiling, but it does mean very small balances cannot be swept out.

What most firms do not publish

Of the sixteen firms on this page, only a handful state a per-payout limit at all. Absence of a published cap is not the same as absence of a cap, and it is a reasonable question to put to support in writing before buying a large account. A firm that answers it clearly is telling you something useful about how it operates.

Processing Fees and What Actually Reaches Your Bank

The split is calculated on profit. The amount that lands in your account is calculated after whatever the firm and the payment rail take out. Those are not the same number, and only one of them is advertised.

A deduction stated up front

AquaFunded publishes a 2% processing fee deducted from the payout. On a 90% split, that turns an $8,000 profit into roughly $7,056 rather than $7,200. The firm states it, which is more than most do, and it is small — but it is real, and it compounds across every withdrawal you ever make.

Rails that cost time instead of money

Topstep documents the trade-off explicitly across three routes: same day for Prop-to-Brokerage if requested before 12pm CT, instant after approval through Aeropay, and one to three business days through ACH or Wise. The fast rails and the slow rails deliver the same amount at different times, and the choice is yours.

Atlas Funded states that once requested, payouts typically take one to three business days. That figure sits alongside its 14-day eligibility gate rather than replacing it — the two add together.

The question worth asking

Before the first withdrawal, establish three things: whether the firm deducts a processing percentage, which rails it supports for your country, and whether the rail itself charges. Crypto rails, bank wires and local payment providers differ by tens of dollars per transaction, and on a bi-weekly cycle that is a recurring cost rather than a one-off.

What a Payout Denial Looks Like in Practice

The word traders fear is “denied”. In the published rules of the firms on this page, outright denial is rarer than the alternative: a payout that is held, delayed or reduced until a condition is met. Knowing which of the two you are facing changes what you should do about it.

Blocked, not breached

Goat Funded Trader is explicit that failing its consistency requirement will not result in account termination or a breach — the payout is blocked until the highest day falls below the threshold. AquaFunded describes the same mechanism: a breach does not close the account, and trading continues until the best day falls back under the limit. FundedSquad states that payouts are delayed until the best day falls back under the Consistency Score threshold.

In all three cases the money is not lost. It is postponed, and it unlocks as later profit dilutes the outlier session. That is a materially different outcome from an account being closed, and it is worth reading carefully before panicking at the word “fail”.

Hard breaches

Drawdown limits are the opposite. Shark Funded describes its 6% maximum on the Lite 1 Step as a hard breach. The Hyper Funding describes its 6% trailing maximum on the 1-Step the same way. Goat Funded Trader frames its 6% static limit as equity or balance never dropping below 94% of starting capital. Cross one of these and the account is over; no waiting period unlocks it.

Review as a step in its own right

FTMO documents a review stage between request and payment: after a withdrawal request is submitted, the account is reviewed and the trader is notified. Every firm does this. Most do not write it down. A request submitted is not a payout approved, and the advertised processing window generally starts at approval rather than at submission — The Hyper Funding words its 24-hour commitment as applying to approved payouts, which is the accurate way to put it.

Consistency Requirements Read as a Payout Rule

Consistency requirements are usually filed under trading rules. Mechanically they belong here, because on most firms that operate one, the requirement is checked at the moment you request money and nowhere else.

Measured against the payout period

Meridian Funded applies no consistency rule at all on Instant Zero. On its other plans, no single trading day may represent more than 15% of total profit during the payout period, and the requirement must be met before requesting a payout — traders keep the rule in force at their time of purchase. FundedSquad frames it as a Consistency Score: the percentage of total profit coming from the single best trading day, set at 20% on Lite Instant, 20% on the 2-Step Squad funded stage and 35% on the 2-Step Fast.

AquaFunded sets thresholds per model: 20% on Instant Funding Standard, 15% on Instant Funding Pro and Aqua Man, 25% on One Step Pro and Two Step Pro. The Hyper Funding does not publish one on the pages consulted, which is stated here as missing information rather than as an absence.

Firms that switch it off

Tiger Funded and FXP both state no consistency rules outright. Shark Funded states no consistency score rules on its homepage. Goat Funded Trader shows no consistency requirement on the 1 STEP or 2-Step Standard models and 15% on Instant Funding GOAT. Blue Guardian publishes no consistency row across its CFD plans, while its futures Standard plan applies a 40% cap on the largest day once funded and its Direct plan scales from 20% to 25% to 30%.

Why the number matters more than its presence

A 15% cap means the best session may not exceed a seventh of total profit for that period. On a concentrated week that alone postpones the payment. A 40% cap, as on Blue Guardian’s futures Standard, is loose enough that most traders will never encounter it. Comparing firms on whether a rule exists is less informative than comparing them on where the threshold sits.

Instant Funding and the Payout Delay Nobody Mentions

Instant funding removes the evaluation. It does not, at most firms on this page, remove the wait before the first withdrawal — and on several it makes that wait longer than the challenge route it replaces.

The comparison that matters

X-Funded requires five days plus 30 active days before a withdrawal on Instant Funding, against at least five days on the 1 Phase Challenge. The instant product is the slower route to money by roughly a month. Goat Funded Trader asks for five valid trading days on Instant Funding GOAT against three in the 1 STEP evaluation. AquaFunded’s first payout arrives 14 days after the first trade regardless of which route was taken.

The split is usually worse too

The Hyper Funding pays 70% standard and 75% Pro on Instant Funding, against 80% and 85% on the 1-Step and up to 95% on the 3-Step. FundedSquad pays 100% on most models but 70% on Instant Pro and 75% on Instant Rapid. Those are the two clearest illustrations that the instant fee buys speed of access, not speed of payment or size of share.

Where it genuinely is faster

Blue Guardian lists instant payouts as the payout cycle on its Instant CFD plan, against up to weekly on the 1 Step Standard. Goat Funded Trader sells an on-demand first reward add-on releasing a 40% split after three days of trading. Those are real accelerations, and both are stated plainly.

How to price it

Instant funding is worth paying for when the constraint you are removing is your own time, not the firm’s. If you would have passed the evaluation in a week, the instant product often costs more and pays later. If the evaluation was the obstacle, it is doing exactly what it says.

Futures Payouts Follow a Different Rulebook

Two firms here run futures programmes alongside or instead of CFD accounts, and the payout mechanics are not a variation on the CFD model. They are a separate product with separate arithmetic.

Topstep

The split is 90/10, with traders on the new dashboard keeping 100% of the first $10,000 of lifetime profits. Getting to the funded stage on the Express Funded Standard route requires five winning days of $150 or more in net P&L, or three days via the consistency route. Withdrawals are capped at 50% of the balance and at $5,000 or $6,000 per payout.

The payment rails are the most granular published on this page: same day for Prop-to-Brokerage before noon Central, instant through Aeropay after approval, one to three business days through ACH or Wise.

Blue Guardian futures

The futures side publishes what the CFD side does not: a consistency requirement. The Standard plan states no consistency rule during the challenge, then a 40% cap on the largest day once funded. The Direct plan scales from 20% to 25% to 30%. Payout caps rise with consistency, up to $4,500 per payout. On the Standard 100K account the maximum drawdown is $3,500 end-of-day trailing with a $2,000 daily loss limit treated as a soft breach.

What transfers and what does not

A trader moving from CFD to futures should expect a lower headline split, an explicit per-payout cap, and drawdown expressed in dollars rather than percentages. The compensation is that the rules tend to be written more precisely, because the underlying instrument is exchange-traded and the firm has less room for interpretation.

Scaling: When the Split Actually Improves

Scaling programmes are sold as growth. Read as payout terms, they are a schedule for when your share of the money goes up, and the schedules differ by years.

Fast curves

FundedSquad publishes 100% growth with every 10% profit, taking allocation to $800,000. AquaFunded adds 25% of the initial account size for a 12% return within a three-month period, running up to $4,000,000. Shark Funded doubles allocation after ten successful reward payouts and 20% accumulated profit, up to $2,000,000.

Slow curves

FTMO’s Scaling Plan requires a minimum of four months before the 2-Step split rises from 80% to 90%. BrightFunded raises the ratio to 90% through scaling and to 100% from the third scale-up. Both are achievable; neither happens inside a quarter.

Capital ceilings

Meridian Funded runs standard funded accounts to $500,000 and up to $5,000,000 through the Meridian Pro programme. FXP advertises trading up to $2M in simulated capital. Moneta Funded quotes $2,000,000 available. X-Funded quotes up to $1M across all challenge types. The Hyper Funding quotes up to $1M. AquaFunded reaches $400K initial before scaling.

The honest way to use these numbers

A scaling ceiling is a statement about the firm’s risk appetite, not a forecast of your account. What matters operationally is the first step: how much profit, over how long, before the split or the allocation changes once. Firms that answer that in a sentence are easier to plan around than firms that publish only the ceiling.

Reading a Payout Promise Before You Pay

Everything above reduces to a short checklist. Run it against any firm, including the sixteen here, before the card comes out.

The six questions

1. When can I first request? Look for a day count from the first trade, not from purchase. Fourteen days is the sector norm.
2. How many qualifying days, and is there a profit floor on each? Check whether the count applies per payout on the funded account or only once during evaluation.
3. What cycle am I on, and does it change the split? Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly and on-demand are frequently different prices for the same profit.
4. Is there a written consequence if they are late? A window without a penalty is a preference. With one, it is a commitment.
5. What is deducted? Processing percentages, rail fees and per-payout caps all sit between the split and your bank.
6. What blocks a payout that is not a breach? Consistency thresholds usually delay rather than terminate. Know the number and know which stage it applies to.

Where to find the answers

Not on the pricing page. Every figure on this page came from a help centre article, a rules page or a terms portal — the places firms use when they are documenting rather than selling. If a firm has no such place, that is itself an answer.

Get it in writing

Where a firm does not publish a term, ask support and keep the reply. A written answer from the firm is worth more in a dispute than any comparison table, including this one.

What a payout proof is worth

Search for prop firm payout proof and you will find screenshots: transfer confirmations, dashboard balances, wallet receipts. They are evidence that the firm has paid someone, which is not nothing, and they are also the easiest thing on the internet to stage. A screenshot has no date you can verify, no account size you can confirm and no way of showing how many requests were refused the same week. Treat them as a weak positive signal and nothing more. The published terms — the eligibility date, the review window, the penalty clause, the deduction — are the part a firm can be held to, and the only part this page ranks on.

The Firms With the Strongest Written Commitment

Stripping out everything that is not enforceable, five firms on this page have put a number and a consequence in writing. They are not necessarily the best firms overall, but they are the ones whose payout promise costs them something to break.

The shortest window with a scaling penalty

Meridian Funded: twelve hours, or the next payout is automatically credited an extra 10%. The clock is honestly labelled as business hours, 9am Monday to 5pm Friday London, paused at weekends. It pairs with a 150% fee refund — 100% cash to the original payment method on the first successful payout, plus 50% in credit — no consistency rule at all on Instant Zero, a 15% cap on the other plans checked before payout rather than treated as a breach, a 90% split scaling to 100%, and accounts to $500,000 or $5,000,000 through Meridian Pro.

The twelve-hour flat penalty

FundedSquad: rewards within twelve hours or a $1,000 bonus, with 100% splits on most models, no minimum trading days on most accounts, and evaluations advertised as fully refundable. The exceptions to watch are Instant Pro at 70% and Instant Rapid at 75%.

The twenty-four hour group

AquaFunded commits to 24 business hours or an extra $1,000, with a 90% standard split and a 2% processing deduction. Blue Guardian commits to 24 hours or an additional $1,000, with on-demand payouts on its Instant CFD plan. The Hyper Funding sends approved payouts within 24 hours with a $1,000 credit if late, on a split ladder running from 70% to 95% depending on how many evaluation steps you accept.

Fast without a penalty

Shark Funded reports a seven-hour average and 99.99% inside 24 hours. BrightFunded reports around 17 hours against a 24-hour commitment. Both look operationally strong. Neither has published a consequence for missing, which is the only thing separating them from the group above.

Where the Guarantees Get Vague

The purpose of this section is not to accuse anyone. It is to mark the places where published material stops, so you know which questions to put to support rather than assuming an answer.

Missing consistency thresholds

The Hyper Funding does not publish a consistency requirement on the pages consulted — not in the 1-Step evaluation rules, not in the Podium payout policy, not on the homepage. That is an absence of published information, not a guarantee that no rule exists. Moneta Funded indicates a 15% to 20% band on some challenges and states that Phoenix Instant has none, but the exact percentage per plan is not published. Ask for the number attached to the specific plan before buying.

Splits quoted as ranges

Moneta Funded quotes 60% to 88% across its models with 88% on the 1-Step funded account. Shark Funded lists 80% on the Lite 1 Step against “up to 90%” on the homepage. Blue Guardian publishes “up to 90%” on CFD plans while site copy mentions select plans paying 100%. In each case the low end is the number to plan around.

Figures that differ between pages

The Hyper Funding’s 1-Step rules state a 6% trailing maximum drawdown while the homepage quotes 8% static for the range. Atlas Funded quotes account sizes from $5K to $400K on the homepage and up to $200K per account on the Models page. Neither is dishonest — different pages describe different products — but the plan page is the one that governs what you bought.

Payout caps left unstated

Only Topstep and Blue Guardian publish a per-payout ceiling. The other fourteen firms say nothing, which is not the same as saying there is none. On a large account this is the single most valuable thing to get in writing before purchase.

Building a Payout Timeline for Your Own Plan

The useful output of all this is not a ranking. It is a date. Here is how to produce one for any firm on this page before you buy.

Step one: count to eligibility

Start from your realistic first trading day, not from purchase. Add the evaluation duration your strategy actually needs — including any minimum day count per phase. Then add the firm’s first-payout gate: fourteen days at AquaFunded, Atlas Funded, The Hyper Funding, Goat Funded Trader, Moneta Funded and FTMO; thirty active days on top of five at X-Funded on Instant Funding.

Step two: count the qualifying days inside the cycle

If the firm counts days per payout rather than once, add them. Goat Funded Trader’s three-to-four days per payout at 0.5% each, or Shark Funded’s seven days before a Lite 1 Step request, land inside the cycle rather than before it.

Step three: add the cycle wait

A bi-weekly cycle means the average request waits seven days for the window, not zero. On-demand means zero. Monthly means fifteen on average — which is what a 100% split costs you at Funding Pips.

Step four: add processing

Twelve hours, twenty-four, forty-eight, or one to three business days. This is the number everyone advertises and it is almost always the smallest term in the sum.

What the arithmetic usually shows

For most firms and most strategies, the advertised processing window accounts for under five percent of the total time between starting and being paid. The eligibility gate and the cycle account for the rest. Choosing a firm on the advertised number optimises the one variable that barely moves the answer.

How This Page Is Maintained

Every number here was read on the firm’s own site — help centre articles, rules pages, pricing configurators and terms portals — and carries the date in the footer. Nothing is carried over from other comparison sites, because a figure copied three times is a figure nobody has verified.

What gets checked and when

Payout commitments and penalty clauses are reviewed monthly, because they are the terms this page is built on. Promotional pricing is reviewed more often, since discount codes expire faster than anything else and an expired code is the clearest sign of an abandoned comparison site.

Where a figure is missing

Blank is better than approximate. Where a firm does not publish a term, this page says so and names the term, rather than substituting a plausible number. Several sections above exist purely to mark those gaps.

Commercial relationships

Outbound links to firms are commercial and may earn a commission. There is a direct commercial relationship with Meridian Funded, Tiger Funded and FXP. Meridian Funded is placed first on the weighting set out at the top of this page: the shortest published processing window in the comparison, the only penalty clause that scales with the payout rather than sitting at a flat fee, a 150% refund structure, and no consistency requirement at all on one of its account types. A reader who weights the flat $1,000 penalties above a proportional one, or who values a 100% default split above a 90% one, should reach a different order — which is exactly why the weighting is published rather than assumed.

What cannot be verified here

A published payout commitment can be read. Whether every individual withdrawal is honoured cannot be audited by anyone outside the firm. Where firms are separated on payout reliability above, they are separated on the specificity and enforceability of what they have written down — not on any claim to know what happens inside their operations.

Frequently Asked Questions