Head-to-head · Independent comparison
How FundingPips and Topstep stack up on profit split, pricing, payouts and the rules that bind a funded account — advertised claims separated from what we could verify.
Tiered split reaching 100% and a clear weekly payout rhythm; top tiers gated behind a consistency score.
Mature, well-documented program with strong payout terms; minor friction from consistency rules and monthly subscription cost.
Advertised maximums
Headline figures from the structured plan data for each firm. “Up to” splits and max funding are ceilings reached via tiers or scaling — not the figure every trader gets.
Our editorial scorecard (0–5)
| Dimension | FundingPips | Topstep | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing & value | 5.0 | 4.0 | FundingPips |
| Profit split | 5.0 | 4.0 | FundingPips |
| Payout speed | 4.0 | 4.0 | Tie |
| Rules flexibility | 3.0 | 4.0 | Topstep |
| Transparency | 4.0 | 5.0 | Topstep |
Scores are The Prop Examiner’s editorial assessment, not user reviews. See our methodology.
Advertised vs verified
FundingPips
Topstep
What actually binds you
FundingPips
| Phase / model | Rule | Published value |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Step | Profit target | 10% |
| 2-Step | Profit target | 8% (phase 1) + 5% (phase 2) |
| 1-Step | Daily loss limit | 3% |
| 2-Step | Daily loss limit | 5% |
| 1-Step | Max drawdown | 6% static |
| 2-Step | Max drawdown | 10% |
| 1-Step | Minimum trading days | 3 days |
| Funded | Consistency | 35% consistency score for 90% tier / on-demand (cycles exempt) |
Topstep
| Phase / model | Rule | Published value |
|---|---|---|
| Combine | Profit target | Set per account size (exact dollar figures not surfaced)verify |
| Combine | Max loss | Maximum Loss Limit (MLL) — trailing drawdown; optional Daily Loss Limit |
| Combine | Contract limits | $50K = 5 (50 micros); $100K = 10 (100); $150K = 15 (150) |
| Funded | Winning-days requirement | Express Funded needs 5 winning days of $150+; Consistency Path 3 days |
| Combine | Consistency | Best single day < 50% of Profit Target (40% on payout path) |
| All | Prohibited styles | Prohibited-practice rules published; specifics not detailed on pages reviewedverify |
Rules vary by product. For a plan-by-plan comparison, use the account comparison tool.
Balanced view
FundingPips
Strengths
Cons & open risks
Topstep
Strengths
Cons & open risks
Our take
These two are closely matched — "better" depends on what you trade and the rules you can live within. Read each verdict, then verify the figures for your exact product before buying.
FundingPips stands out for a tiered split that reaches 100% and a clear weekly payout rhythm, with a low entry price. The catch is that the top split tiers are gated behind a consistency score, and several details (instrument count, platform list, some targets) were not published on official pages. Compare the consistency requirement against your trading style before buying.
Topstep is one of the most established futures evaluation firms, with a transparent help center and a 90% split backed by a low minimum payout. The trailing Maximum Loss Limit and consistency targets demand disciplined trading, and a few exact figures should be confirmed at checkout. The Prop Examiner has no affiliate relationship with Topstep at this time.
Affiliate disclosure: The Prop Examiner is an independent project and may earn a commission if you sign up through some of our links. We are not affiliated with any firm reviewed. Trading challenges are simulated/educational products; no profits or payouts are guaranteed.
Common questions
Cited & dated
Figures trace to each firm’s own pages, accessed on the dates shown. Re-verify before relying on any number — pricing and promos change.
More head-to-heads