FTMO vs MyForexFunds: Prop Firm Comparison

FTMO and MyForexFunds collectively funded thousands of traders with combined capital allocations exceeding $1 billion before MFF faced regulatory action in August 2023. Understanding what each firm offered — and what their differences reveal about the broader prop firm model — is essential for any trader considering the funded route.

The stakes are real: a wrong firm choice doesn’t just cost you the challenge fee ($155–$1,080 depending on account size). It costs you months of constrained trading under rules that may conflict with your strategy’s natural drawdown profile. A scalper trading news events and a swing trader holding positions over weekends face entirely different risk exposure under each firm’s ruleset.

This page breaks down FTMO and MyForexFunds across the metrics that actually determine whether you get funded and stay funded — challenge structure, drawdown mechanics, payout terms, and the fine print that disqualifies accounts. Where the comparison surfaces a gap in your own analysis, Assistly’s screener can close it.

Challenge Structure and Entry Cost

FTMO operates a two-phase evaluation. Phase 1 requires a 10% profit target with a 10% maximum drawdown and 5% daily drawdown limit over 30 days. Phase 2 drops the target to 5% over 60 days. Pass both and you trade a live FTMO account. The entry fee for a $100K account is €1,080, refundable on your first payout. The structure is strict but transparent — FTMO has published its rules without material changes since 2015.

MyForexFunds offered a tiered model with three programs: Rapid, Accelerated, and Standard. The Rapid program — its most popular — required only a single phase with a 8% profit target and relatively relaxed drawdown rules. Entry fees were lower than FTMO’s comparable tiers, and the absence of a second verification phase attracted traders who wanted faster access to capital. That speed advantage came with tradeoffs in consistency requirements that the firm later cited internally as a risk management concern.

• FTMO: Two-phase, 10% then 5% profit target, 30+60 day windows
• MFF Rapid: Single phase, 8% profit target, no minimum trading days
• FTMO $100K fee: €1,080 (refundable at first payout)
• MFF $100K Rapid fee: ~$549 (non-refundable structure varied by program)
• FTMO minimum trading days: 4 days per phase
• MFF minimum trading days: None for Rapid program

Drawdown Rules: Where Most Traders Actually Fail

FTMO uses an equity-based daily drawdown calculated from the day’s starting balance, not the account peak. If your account starts the day at $100,000, you cannot lose more than $5,000 that calendar day — regardless of open floating losses. This trips up traders who hold overnight positions into high-volatility opens. A gap down of 3% on an overleveraged position can terminate a challenge before the market opens.

MyForexFunds applied a trailing maximum drawdown on the Rapid program — meaning the drawdown ceiling rose as profits accumulated. A trader who grew a $100K account to $108K saw their hard floor rise to $97,200 (using an 8% trailing rule). This mechanic rewarded early profitability but punished mean-reversion strategies that accept temporary drawdowns before recovering. Traders who ran strategies with a 15% peak-to-trough drawdown statistically couldn’t survive the trailing model regardless of ultimate profitability.

• FTMO daily drawdown: 5% from start-of-day equity (absolute, not trailing)
• FTMO max drawdown: 10% from initial balance (absolute)
• MFF Rapid max drawdown: 8% trailing from highest equity
• MFF Standard max drawdown: 10% trailing
• FTMO: Overnight and weekend holding permitted
• MFF: News trading restrictions applied in certain programs

You are a prop firm risk analyst. I trade a mean-reversion equity strategy with an average max drawdown of 12% and average recovery period of 18 trading days. My win rate is 58% and average R:R is 1.4. Evaluate whether I would survive: (1) FTMO's absolute 10% max drawdown with 5% daily limit, and (2) a trailing 8% max drawdown rule. Show the failure probability for each based on my statistics and identify which rule is the binding constraint.

Payout Terms and Profit Split

FTMO pays an 80% profit split by default, scaling to 90% through its FTMO Scale-Up program once a trader demonstrates consistency across four consecutive profitable months. Payouts are processed on a monthly cycle with a minimum 14-day window between first trade and first payout request. The firm has processed over $100 million in total payouts — a verifiable figure from its public reporting.

MyForexFunds advertised up to an 85% profit split on the Rapid program, with bi-weekly payout options that gave it a cash flow edge over FTMO for active traders. The faster payout cycle was a genuine competitive advantage, particularly for traders compounding small accounts. However, MFF’s regulatory suspension by the CFTC and ASIC in 2023 froze accounts and outstanding payouts for affected traders — a systemic risk that no payout split could offset retrospectively.

Regulatory Standing and Counterparty Risk

This is where the comparison becomes asymmetric. FTMO operates under Czech law as a private company providing simulated trading environments. It is not a regulated broker — no prop firm in this space is — but it has maintained operational continuity since 2015 with no enforcement actions. Its legal structure limits trader recourse but its track record provides empirical evidence of payout reliability.

MyForexFunds was targeted by a joint CFTC-ASIC action in August 2023, with the CFTC alleging fraud and misrepresentation — specifically that the firm was not actually placing client trades in the market as represented. Assets were frozen. Traders with balances on the platform had no recourse mechanism. The regulatory action doesn’t implicate all prop firms, but it establishes that counterparty risk in this industry is real and asymmetric: upside is capped at 85%, downside is 100% of your challenge fee and any locked profits.

• FTMO: Operational since 2015, Czech-registered, no regulatory actions
• MFF: CFTC/ASIC enforcement action August 2023, assets frozen
• Neither firm is a regulated broker — no deposit protection applies
• Due diligence should include: proof of live execution, payout history verification, community dispute records
• Treat challenge fees as fully at-risk capital regardless of firm reputation

Which Trader Profile Fits Which Firm

FTMO suits traders with defined, rule-respecting strategies that can operate within absolute drawdown boundaries. Its two-phase structure filters for consistency rather than peak performance. Traders running systematic strategies with well-documented statistics — maximum drawdown under 8%, positive expectancy over 50+ trades — are structurally aligned with FTMO’s evaluation model. The refundable fee also changes the risk calculus: a skilled trader is not paying for access, they’re posting a performance deposit.

MyForexFunds, when operational, suited traders who needed faster capital access and could manage trailing drawdown mechanics. Its single-phase Rapid program was objectively easier to pass for traders with short-term, high-frequency approaches. The regulatory outcome doesn’t erase that structural fit — it adds a counterparty risk premium that most traders failed to price in. Future firms replicating MFF’s model should be evaluated with that premium explicitly factored.

I am evaluating two prop firm structures before paying a challenge fee. Firm A: two-phase, 10% absolute max drawdown, 5% daily limit, 80% split, refundable fee, 9-year track record. Firm B: single-phase, 8% trailing max drawdown, 85% split, non-refundable fee, 2-year track record, faster payouts. My strategy has a 9.5% historical max drawdown, 62% win rate, and I trade 3-5 times per week. Build a structured go/no-go decision framework for each firm that weights regulatory risk, rule fit, and expected value of the challenge fee.

Using a Screener to Stress-Test Firm Fit Before You Pay

The comparison above covers the two most-discussed firms, but the prop firm landscape now includes 50+ active operators with varying drawdown mechanics, instrument restrictions, and payout structures. Manually cross-referencing your backtest statistics against each firm’s ruleset is error-prone and time-consuming.

Assistly’s screener lets you input your strategy’s historical drawdown profile, average trade duration, and instrument focus to filter prop firms whose rules are statistically compatible with your approach. It surfaces rule conflicts — like a scalper whose average trade duration is 4 minutes running into a firm that prohibits trades under 2 minutes — before you pay to find out.