Loading The Prop Examiner research
Head-to-head · Independent comparison
FundingPips vs Upcomers
How FundingPips and Upcomers stack up on profit split, pricing, payouts and the rules that bind a funded account — advertised claims separated from what we could verify.
Evidence desk · Independent analysisLast updated
Tiered split reaching 100% and a clear weekly payout rhythm; top tiers gated behind a consistency score.
Broad product line and a genuinely high split on Thunderbolt funded; trailing drawdown and heavy 'up to' framing are the trade-offs.
Advertised maximums
The numbers, head-to-head
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.
Profit split — headline maximum (%)
Higher is betterFundingPipsBest
100%
Upcomers
99%
Entry price — lowest advertised ($)
Lower is betterFundingPips
$224
UpcomersBest
$39
Max funding — headline ($)
Higher is betterFundingPips
$200K
UpcomersBest
$1.5M
Our editorial scorecard (0–5)
Who wins each dimension
| Dimension | FundingPips | Upcomers | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing & value | 5.0 | 4.0 | FundingPips |
| Profit split | 5.0 | 5.0 | Tie |
| Payout speed | 4.0 | 5.0 | Upcomers |
| Rules flexibility | 3.0 | 3.0 | Tie |
| Transparency | 4.0 | 4.0 | Tie |
Scores are The Prop Examiner’s editorial assessment, not user reviews. See our methodology.
Advertised vs verified
At a glance
FundingPips
Upcomers
What actually binds you
Key trading rules compared
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) |
Upcomers
| Phase / model | Rule | Published value |
|---|---|---|
| Challenge | Profit target | 5% net profit |
| Challenge | Daily loss limit | 6% max within a single day |
| Challenge | Overall loss limit (Dynamic Risk Shield) | 10% below highest equity (trailing) |
| Challenge | Minimum trading days | None |
| Challenge | Consistency / Best Day Rule | Does not apply |
| Funded | Daily loss limit | 3% max daily loss |
| Funded | Overall loss limit (Dynamic Risk Shield) | 6% below peak equity (trailing) |
| Funded | Max risk per trade | 3% of initial balance (hard breach) |
| Funded | Consistency (Best Day Rule) | No single day > 20% of total withdrawal (soft) |
| Funded | Profit split | 99% to trader |
| Funded | Withdrawal requirement | Reach 1% profit on initial balance first |
Rules vary by product. For a plan-by-plan comparison, use the account comparison tool.
Balanced view
Pros & cons
FundingPips
Strengths
- Tiered split can reach 100% on a monthly reward cycle.
- Flexible reward cadence (on-demand / weekly / biweekly / monthly).
- Weekly “Tuesday Pay Day” payout rhythm.
- Low advertised entry price (from $29 on 2-Step Pro).
Cons & open risks
- The 100% / 90% split tiers require meeting a 35% consistency score.
- Exact instrument count and platform list were not published on official pages.
- Site is Cloudflare-protected, making independent re-verification harder.
- As with all prop challenges, most buyers do not reach a payout.
Upcomers
Strengths
- Documented, public rules and a help center you can read before buying.
- Wide range of account sizes and products (challenge + instant funding).
- High advertised profit split (up to 99%, verified at 99% on Thunderbolt funded).
- No minimum trading days on the Thunderbolt challenge.
- States it does not act as a broker or accept deposits for investment.
Cons & open risks
- Headline figures (up to $1.5M, up to 99%) are maximums, not typical outcomes.
- Profit split and rules vary by product — 99% is verified only on Thunderbolt funded.
- Trailing drawdown (“Dynamic Risk Shield”) is stricter than a static limit.
- Promotional pricing changes frequently and is not permanent.
- Self-reported metrics (e.g. 99% payout approval) are not independently audited.
- As with all prop challenges, most buyers do not reach a payout.
Our take
Which should you choose?
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.
Visit FundingPipsWe may earn a commission. Any current discount is applied at checkout; confirm the total before paying.
Upcomers documents its rules publicly and offers an unusually broad product line with a genuinely high split on its Thunderbolt funded product. The trade-offs are a trailing “Dynamic Risk Shield” drawdown that is less forgiving than a static limit, heavy reliance on “up to” headline figures, and promo pricing that shifts. It is a reasonable option to compare if you read the rules for your exact product, treat the headline numbers as ceilings, and start with the smallest suitable plan.
Visit UpcomersWe may earn a commission. Any current discount is applied at checkout; confirm the total before paying.
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
FundingPips vs Upcomers FAQ
- Is FundingPips or Upcomers better?
- Our independent ratings: FundingPips 4.1/5, Upcomers 4.4/5. They are closely matched on our scorecard — the right pick depends on your market, budget and the rules you can trade within.
- Which is cheaper to start, FundingPips or Upcomers?
- Lowest advertised entry price: FundingPips from $224, Upcomers from $39. Upcomers has the lower starting price, but compare like-for-like account sizes — cheapest is not always best value.
- Which has the higher profit split, FundingPips or Upcomers?
- Headline ("up to") maximums: FundingPips 100%, Upcomers 99%. FundingPips advertises the higher ceiling — but top splits are usually gated behind tiers or scaling, not what every trader gets.
- Does FundingPips or Upcomers pay out faster?
- FundingPips: “Tuesday Pay Day” weekly; on-demand/weekly/biweekly/monthly selectable. Upcomers: On-demand after 1% profit; “12h” advertised, <1h avg claimed. Payout speed and eligibility depend on the product and on meeting each firm's rules; no payout is guaranteed.
Cited & dated
Sources
Figures trace to each firm’s own pages, accessed on the dates shown. Re-verify before relying on any number — pricing and promos change.
- 1.FundingPips — homepage· accessed 2026-06-17
- 2.FundingPips — trading objectives· accessed 2026-06-17
- 3.FundingPips — 1-step model· accessed 2026-06-17
- 4.FundingPips — rewards / Tuesday Pay Day· accessed 2026-06-17
- 5.Upcomers — homepage (headline claims)· accessed 2026-06-17
- 6.Upcomers — how we operate· accessed 2026-06-17
- 7.Upcomers — Thunderbolt complete rules· accessed 2026-06-17
- 8.Upcomers — instruments & platforms· accessed 2026-06-17
- 9.Upcomers — affiliate program terms· accessed 2026-06-17
More head-to-heads