Funded Trader Markets 

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 14, 2026

There is a fundamental contradiction in your review that needs to be called out.

Your review states that the Overall Drawdown Limit was not visible on the dashboard and that only the Daily Drawdown Limit, Maximum Drawdown Limit, and Consistency Rule were displayed. The Overall Drawdown Limit and the Maximum Drawdown Limit are the same thing. They are used interchangeably. If you are telling us that the Maximum Drawdown Limit was clearly visible on your dashboard, you are simultaneously confirming that the Overall Drawdown Limit was clearly visible on your dashboard. The concern raised and the information you acknowledge seeing are one and the same metric.

Your claim that this limit wasn't transparently tracked at any level is also false. It was not hidden in any form. How the trailing lock drawdown functions on the 1-Step Nitro model is documented in full across our main website FAQ, our live chat help centre, and our Discord server FAQ channel. The program overview and comparison section of our website also clearly states the drawdown type for every account model before purchase. There is no version of events where this information was unavailable to you.

Beyond the documentation, our dashboard includes a dedicated Simulators section specifically designed to allow traders to model and understand how each drawdown type we offer works in practice. This is particularly useful for anyone who prefers a visual and interactive way to understand the mechanics before trading. It was available to you. It was never used.

Our support team is also available 24/7. At any point before, during, or after purchasing, you could have asked for a breakdown of exactly how the trailing drawdown works on your model and received a detailed explanation immediately. That option was never taken up either.

The information was documented publicly. It was simulatable on the dashboard. It was one message away from our support team at any time. The trader area of the dashboard also provides fully automated real time tracking of your drawdown position so that monitoring your limit requires nothing more than checking the figures shown.

We understand losing an account is frustrating. But every avenue to understand this rule was available and none of them were used. That is not a transparency failure on our part.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 12, 2026

Hi,

Thank you for being this open. We want to give you a direct and honest response to everything you have raised.

The negative reviews you have been reading are not a reflection of how we operate. The overwhelming majority of them stem from rule violations. If you trade within the rules, we pay. That is the model and it does not change.

Regarding margin, there is no floating loss rule on the 1-Step Nitro model so you are not in violation there. That said, we always advise practicing proper risk management regardless of the model. Trading at higher lot sizes on every entry puts you at a greater risk of hitting your drawdown limits in a single adverse move. Our full margin rules are outlined here:
https://fundedtradermarkets.com/faq/how-do-account-margin-rules-apply-to-my-challenge-and-funded-account/
https://fundedtradermarkets.com/faq/what-are-the-consequences-of-having-my-positions-stopped-out-due-to-a-margin-call/
You can also use our margin calculator to plan your sizing before entering a trade: https://fundedtradermarkets.com/tools/
As for the 10 minute no trade rule, we do not have that rule. You can enter a new position immediately after closing one with no waiting period required.

All of our rules and guidelines are fully and transparently documented in our FAQ: https://fundedtradermarkets.com/faq/ We would strongly encourage you to go through them before making any further decisions and remember, if you have any questions or need additional clarification with anything stated on our website, you are always welcome to reach out to our support team by emailing support@fundedtradermarkets.com

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 27, 2026

Same-day performance reward after years of being let down elsewhere is exactly what we are here for. Welcome home and thank you for the recommendation.

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 7, 2026

The logic being presented here falls apart on its own and stems from frustration rather than any genuine basis in fact.

You joined in November 2025, not January 2026, and did not pass your first account or your second. You passed your third, which was on a 100% profit split, and received your performance reward on that account. You then breached it and went on to purchase 12 more accounts, all of which you have breached fairly. You have contacted our support team on multiple occasions requesting an explanation for each breach and each one was broken down and explained in full every single time.

The conclusion you have nonetheless arrived at is that we must be manipulating your accounts to make you fail. Let us be clear about how little sense that makes. If we were interfering with accounts to manufacture breaches, we would have done so from the very first one. We did not. Your third challenge was passed, your funded account was issued, and your performance rewards were paid. Those outcomes were entirely the result of your trading. So were every single one of the subsequent breaches. The only variable between the accounts that succeeded and the accounts that did not is the trading that took place on them.

You have received more in performance rewards than you have spent with us. That is not the track record of a firm working against its traders. That is the track record of a firm that pays when the rules are followed and applies transparently laid out consequences when they are not.

We do not interfere with accounts. We do not manufacture breaches. What we do is enforce the same rules consistently across every account on the platform. Fifteen breached accounts is not evidence of manipulation. It is a trading performance issue and one that only you have the ability to address.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 6, 2026

We are going to address every single claim in this review because every single one of them is wrong.

Your account was breached due to a violation of the overall drawdown limit. This is not the same as your daily drawdown limit, which you have repeatedly cited in your live chat ticket. These are two separate conditions and conflating them does not make your argument. The overall drawdown threshold was breached. The figures displayed on your dashboard are not numbers we generate or manipulate in any way. Every metric shown, including lowest equity, highest equity, and P&L, is based entirely on your recorded trading activity, which is driven by things completely outside of our control. The trades you place are executed based on tick data, which is public and identical across the market for every trader. That tick data determines your entry and exit price. Your lot size, combined with that, determines your profit, loss, and the maximum and minimum possible exposure at any point during the trade. All of that trading activity is independently logged and saved on your platform journal, which we can't manipulate in any way. What is displayed on your dashboard is simply a reflection of all of that combined recorded activity. We are not producing numbers from thin air. You are seeing the result of your own trades. Our support agent did not respond vaguely. He broke down the specific trade that caused the breach in full detail and attached screenshots to support it. You did not ask any follow-up questions. You then went on to purchase two more accounts.

On the FAQ not being part of the Terms and Conditions, this is factually incorrect and a direct demonstration that you did not read the Terms and Conditions. Section 5.E states explicitly that any rule, restriction, or condition stated within the FAQs section of the Company's website shall be deemed an integral part of the prohibited trading practices and shall be fully enforceable. The FAQ is not a substitute for the Terms and Conditions. It is a direct and accessible breakdown of all trading rules designed to be read alongside the Terms and Conditions. If anything, placing critical rules in a lengthy legal document and not in the FAQ would be the definition of hiding them. The FAQ is the first place any trader looks. The argument that the rule is buried because it is in the FAQ and not repeated verbatim in the Terms and Conditions falls apart the moment you read Section 5.E, which you clearly did not.

Our rules are not hidden. They are published across our main website FAQ, our live chat help centre, and our Discord server FAQ channel. If our model was designed to manufacture breaches and hide rules, one would have to explain why you have purchased 25 accounts with us, been paid before in 5 minutes, and continue to return. That is not the behaviour of someone who believes they are being scammed. That is the behaviour of someone who knows the rules, knows the rewards are real, and on this occasion fell short of the standard required. When the rules are followed, the rewards are processed. That is the entire model.

The warning on our page is the result of an ongoing dispute between us and the Trustpilot team which we have addressed and countered internally. Trustpilot is an external third party platform. A flag or dispute on their platform has no bearing on our services, our trading conditions, or the legitimacy of our operations. By that logic, an X account being suspended would mean something is wrong with the business itself. That is not how it works.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 14, 2026

We want to address this review directly and on the record because the claims made are serious and deserve a factual response.

Before we do, we reached out to request the account details needed to investigate the specific situations described. No information was provided. We cannot verify, investigate, or respond to specific trade-level claims without an account number or any identifiable detail. That information was requested and not given, which makes it impossible for us to confirm whether the scenarios described even took place as stated.

On the stop loss claim. Stop losses do not guarantee execution at the exact price set. This is a fundamental and universally understood aspect of trading. When price moves rapidly through a level, whether due to a spread widening, a gap, or a fast market, the order is filled at the next available price. This is known as slippage and it is an industry-wide reality that applies across every broker, prop firm, and execution environment in existence. If a stop loss was set at minus $80 and the position closed at minus $150, the most likely explanation is that price moved through the stop level faster than the order could be filled at that exact price. This is not manipulation. This is how execution works in live market conditions. The fact that this occurred across two accounts is entirely consistent with trading during volatile conditions, not evidence of a deliberate pattern.

On the spread claim. A spread of 45 to 50 pips on XAUUSD would be abnormal under standard conditions and we do not recognize that as a figure representative of our platform. Spreads on Gold fluctuate based on market liquidity and can widen significantly during low liquidity periods such as weekends, session opens, and around major news events. Without the specific trade timestamps and account details, we are unable to verify what spread was present at the exact moment of execution. What we can say is that our spreads on XAUUSD are publicly available and competitive. The claim of a consistently predatory 45 to 50 pip spread as a standard figure is not something our data supports.

On the broader accusation that our model is designed to harvest evaluation fees by engineering failures. This is a serious claim that is entirely unsupported by evidence. We have processed millions of dollars in performance rewards to traders who trade within the rules. A firm operating the way described in this review could not sustain that track record. The accusation does not hold up.

We remain willing to investigate if the account details are provided. Until then, we are not in a position to accept the characterization made here as an accurate reflection of our platform or our practices.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 28, 2026

We appreciate you sharing your experience and we want to address it directly.

The commission was not paid because a PPC violation was identified in the traffic you submitted. Specifically, your campaign included bidding on our branded keywords, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 7 of our Affiliate Policy. This section is publicly available and is part of the terms every affiliate agrees to when joining the program. It is not an implicit rule and it is not a new one. It is a clearly stated prohibited activity listed alongside other serious violations such as fraudulent activity and fake referrals.

The review you submitted was not denied without reason or without process. You were asked to provide proof of your traffic source and advertising content. You submitted that evidence. That evidence is what confirmed the PPC violation. The outcome followed directly from what you provided.

On the communication delays, we acknowledge that the response time during the review period was not up to the standard we hold ourselves to and we are sorry for that. However the delay in communication does not change the nature of the violation or the decision that followed from it.

We understand this is a frustrating outcome, particularly when effort has been put into promotion. However the policy exists because PPC campaigns bidding on our brand name directly compete with our own advertising spend. This is not something we can make exceptions for regardless of the volume of referrals generated.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 6, 2026

We want to address this review directly as the claims made are inaccurate and do not reflect what actually took place.

There was no rejection. What occurred was a deduction of profits generated from trades that violated our Minimum Trade Holding Time rule. This rule, which is fully documented and available on every single FAQ channel we have, states that any trade closed within 1 minute of being opened will have its profit voided. This does not result in an account breach, and the eligible portion of your performance reward was processed and paid in full. The deducted amount reflects only the profits from trades that fell below the 1 minute threshold.

On the account being closed after the reward. This is standard procedure for the Instant Pro model and is a feature of the program, not a penalty. A new account is issued after every successful reward request to adjust your profit split, which increases by 10% after each reward up to a maximum of 80%. As this was your first reward, the reissued account reflected a 60% profit split. The reissue also resets the trailing drawdown, which is one of the key benefits of the Instant Pro model.

We would also like to note that this review references an account from February. Since then, you have breached that account, purchased a new one, and received a full performance reward on it with no deductions, as there were no holding time violations. That outcome is a direct reflection of trading within the rules.

Given that this review does not accurately represent the situation and that your most recent experience with us has clearly been a positive one, we would encourage you to revisit what was written here. We are happy to assist with any further questions.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 14, 2026

Thank you for the detailed message and for being respectful in how you framed it. We want to respond with the same directness.

The premise that traders are losing accounts because of strict rules misses a critical point. Rules in prop trading are not there to trip traders up. They are there to simulate real risk management standards that any professionally traded account would be held to. A firm with no rules or loosely enforced ones is not a firm that can sustain itself or reliably pay out its traders. The rules are the product. They are what make the rewards meaningful.

On the point that we only explain and defend our policies without offering solutions. That is because in the vast majority of cases involving negative reviews, the outcome was the result of a rule being broken. There is no solution to offer in those situations beyond explaining what happened. We are not going to reinstate breached accounts or reverse valid compliance decisions as a customer service gesture. That would be unfair to every trader who respects the program and manages their risk accordingly. Consistency is not inflexibility. It is integrity.

On your comment that hardships will overshadow our track record. Traders who follow the rules do not experience hardship with us. The negative reviews you have read come from a specific subset of outcomes, overwhelmingly rule violations, not from traders who traded correctly and were treated unfairly. That distinction matters and it is one that anyone doing genuine due diligence would arrive at.

On the mention of your X following. We appreciate the transparency but it does not factor into how we respond or what position we take. We give the same answer to a trader with 773k followers as we do to anyone else.

We understand the rules may not suit every trading style and that is completely fine. We are not the right firm for every trader and we have never claimed to be. But for traders who operate within the framework, we pay. That is the model and it holds.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 3, 2026

We are going to address this review point by point because the claims being made are factually wrong and the characterization of our platform as deceptive is one we are not going to let stand unchallenged.

The Maximum Floating Loss Rule is the condition applied during the evaluation phase when you select the free 90% profit split add-on. You have stated that the rule was hidden behind a "Click here for more info" link. This is false. The 90% profit split add-on is optional. Nobody is required to select it. When you hover over the option on the checkout page, before even clicking to add it, a message is displayed making clear that the Maximum Floating Loss Rule applies. You do not need to click anything. The information is surfaced the moment your cursor reaches that option. Deciding not to read what is placed directly in front of you at the point of purchase is a choice you made, not something we are responsible for.

Let us also assume for a moment that you missed the checkout note entirely. The Maximum Floating Loss Rule is documented in full on our main website FAQ, our live chat FAQ, and our Discord server FAQ channel. It is in every single place we publish our rules. If you were not aware of this rule, that is not because we hid it. It is because you did not read the rules of the program you were purchasing. That is entirely on you.

The Maximum Floating Loss Rule and the daily drawdown limit are two completely separate conditions. The rule is triggered when the combined floating loss across all open positions reaches -1% of your account capital at any given moment. Your overall drawdown figure is irrelevant to how this is assessed. The threshold was reached and the rule was applied exactly as documented.

The account will not be reinstated. The condition was available to read before purchase, during purchase, and across every FAQ resource we have. Calling that a trap does not make it one.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 3, 2026

Thanks for your honest review. We are really glad to see you are enjoying your trading with our Instant Plus account and our Support Team has been available for any assistance every step of the way. Wishing you continued success on your trading journey.

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 3, 2026

7 minutes on a performance reward is exactly what we aim for, glad it landed that way for you. The dashboard and support team are things we have put a lot of work into so it is great to hear that coming through. Appreciate the recommendation and here is to many more rewards to come.

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 3, 2026

Congratulations on your first performance reward and we hope it is the first of many more to come.

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 29, 2026

The claim being made does not accurately reflect what took place.

You purchased a 2-Step Plus account with the free 90% profit split add-on. This add-on comes with a clearly stated condition: the Shield Risk Protocol is applied during the evaluation phase. This condition is displayed at the point of purchase. Hovering over the add-on on the checkout page presents a visible message explaining that this rule applies, with a hyperlink to read further. It is also documented across our FAQ pages. The information was available at every stage.

The first time this rule was violated on your account, it was treated as a soft breach. An email was sent to you at that point with a warning. That email was an opportunity to pause, read, and reach out to our support team for clarification if anything was unclear. That opportunity was not taken. The rule was violated a second time, which triggered a hard breach and resulted in the account being closed. This is the exact process as documented.

On the claim that you only lost 3%. The Maximum Floating Loss rule is triggered when the combined floating loss across all open positions reaches -1% of your account capital at any given moment. It is not based on your overall drawdown at the end of the day. The percentage you quote is not relevant to how this rule is assessed. The threshold was reached twice and the consequences applied accordingly.

The add-on was selected, the rule was documented, a warning was issued, and the hard breach followed a second violation. That is not a scam. That is a clearly communicated condition being enforced consistently.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

May 3, 2026

Really appreciate the kind words. Upfront rules, fast support and quick performance rewards are the standard we hold ourselves to, so it is always good to hear that is the experience on the ground. Thank you for sharing.

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 22, 2026

We understand this outcome has been disappointing and we want to address the points raised directly.

Contract sizes for index instruments such as GER40 are not standardized across the industry. They vary between brokers and prop firms, and in some cases vary between platforms as well. The dollar value per lot on GER40 at FTM may differ from what you have encountered elsewhere, and that is an industry reality rather than something we have control over or have misrepresented. It is the responsibility of every trader, regardless of experience level, to review the instrument specifications of any pair or index they intend to trade before placing a position. This includes checking the contract size, margin requirements, and the resulting dollar exposure per lot. Assuming that specifications will be identical across different firms because you have traded the same instrument elsewhere is not something we can be held accountable for.

The contract size for GER40 and all other instruments available on our platform is accessible within cTrader before any trade is placed. The information is there and it is the trader's responsibility to use it.

We would also like to point out that we offer a free position sizing and margin calculator on our website, which is available to all traders and is particularly useful when trading instruments you may be less familiar with or when moving between different firms. We would encourage you to make use of it going forward.

We are sorry the experience did not go as expected, but the outcome on this account is not a result of any error or oversight on our part.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 17, 2026

Muhammad, we are going to address this review point by point because the framing used here is misleading and does not accurately represent what took place.

First, on the characterisation of this as a "2-minute technicality" and a "sneaky trap." The Partial Close rule is not a technicality and it is not hidden. It is clearly documented in our FAQ and our Terms and Conditions and is linked directly in the compliance email sent to you. The rule is straightforward: once any portion of a position is closed, all remaining volume must be fully closed within the same trading day, prior to the 5pm ET reset. The final 5 lots of your BTCUSD position were closed at 6:04pm ET, 1 hour and 4 minutes into the next trading day. That is a Partial Close violation regardless of how large or small the gap is. The reset applies at 5pm ET the same way for every trader on the platform.

Second, on the 15-minute aggregation rule. This rule exists precisely to prevent traders from fragmenting a single position into multiple ticket IDs to avoid policy enforcement. Positions opened on the same instrument within 15 minutes of each other are treated as one aggregated position for the purposes of the Partial Close rule. This is also documented. Describing it as being used to "trap" traders is a mischaracterisation of a rule that is applied consistently and without exception across all accounts.

Third, on the response from our support team. The response you received was not robotic. It was accurate, detailed, and fully broken down with the exact timestamps, lot sizes, and figures that led to the deduction. A full compliance report was attached. What you are describing as a lack of flexibility is simply our team applying the rules as they are written without making exceptions, which is exactly what traders should expect from a firm that operates with integrity.

The deduction of $2,579.00 is not arbitrary. It reflects the profit generated within the affected partial close sequence, which is excluded from payout calculations under our policy. Your account remains in good standing and your eligible performance reward of $805.65 was processed accordingly.

Every trader on this platform is held to the same rules under the same conditions. We do not make exceptions based on intent or the size of the timing gap, because doing so would be unfair to every other trader who ensures their positions are closed correctly before the reset. That is not a trap. That is consistency.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 12, 2026

Thank you for the kind words! Fast performance rewards are something we pride ourselves on and we are glad that came through for you. Here is to many more!

- The FTM Team

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 12, 2026

We want to address this review directly as several of the claims made are inaccurate and do not reflect what actually took place.

The FAQ information you are referring to is fully accurate and has been clearly understood by traders across our platform. For those who require additional guidance, our 24/7 support team is available at any time to walk through the rules in detail. That option was available to you before trading.

The FAQ provides clear examples using a $100,000 account as a reference point to illustrate how the overall drawdown limit works. Based on your own explanation during the live chat ticket you raised after the breach, you stated that you believed the rule only applied to $100,000 accounts and not your $200,000 account. That is a misreading of the FAQ and is not something that can be attributed to us. The rule applies regardless of account size and is documented consistently across our main website, live chat help centre, and our Discord server FAQ channel.

The support agent who assisted you was thorough and took the time to walk through the breach with you in full. Describing that interaction as unhelpful and unfriendly is not an accurate reflection of what took place.

We are a firm that has processed over $4,000,000 in performance rewards to our traders. The suggestion that we operate to collect challenge fees rather than reward performance is not supported by our track record.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets

Reply from Funded Trader Markets

Apr 17, 2026

We have already requested the details of your account so we can look into this properly. To date, that information has not been provided. Without an account number, email address, or any verifiable details, we are not in a position to recognize this review as legitimate or investigate the claim being made.

We also want to address the broader point being made about our support team being unwilling to assist. If an account has been breached and the breach is valid, we are not obligated to reinstate it. This is not a discretionary decision made by our team. As clearly stated in our FAQ, a hard breach results in the account being automatically marked as failed and trading being disabled. This is the system working exactly as it is designed to, applied objectively and consistently across every account on the platform. It has nothing to do with any agenda against individual traders and everything to do with the rules being upheld the same way for everyone.

If you experienced a genuine technical issue that you believe directly caused the breach, that is a separate matter entirely and one we are willing to look into, but we need your account details to do so. Please reach out to us at support@fundedtradermarkets.com with your account number and a description of what happened. Alternatively, updating this review with verifiable information will allow us to locate your account and respond accordingly.

The Compliance Team
Funded Trader Markets