Professional Scammers
Professiona Scammers
It appears this firm employs manipulative tactics to trigger false breaches. They artificially create a misleading "lowest equity" reading—something that cannot be verified or traced through account history. Even when your trading history and dashboard clearly show you are within the allowed limits, they claim a breach occurred based on an unverifiable internal metric. When you question them, they respond vaguely, stating that "the system detected a drop"—without offering any concrete evidence or convincing explanation.
Additionally, the firm fails to disclose important trading restrictions upfront. For example, they do not clearly state in their Terms & Conditions that trades must remain open for at least one minute—a critical rule for scalpers. This condition is buried in their FAQ, which legally is not part of the binding Terms & Conditions. When confronted, they deflect by citing the FAQ, even though it holds no contractual weight.
Their business model appears to rely on low-cost challenge fees to attract traders, while hiding restrictive rules and using unverifiable metrics to make breaches easy and frequent. This lack of transparency and accountability raises serious concerns about their honesty and integrity.
Even on Trust Pilot you get a warning message when you search this Firm, no wonder:
{This company’s rating is unavailable due to a breach of our guidelines}
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
Stay Away From Funded Trade Markets A Dishonest Prop Firm That Sets You Up To Fail
If you are considering joining Funded Trade Markets, also known as FTM, as your prop trading firm, I genuinely urge you to stop reading their marketing material and read this first. What I experienced with this company goes beyond poor service. It is, in my opinion, a deliberate and systematic setup designed to make traders fail, lose their accounts, and hand their evaluation fees straight back to the firm.
I was trading XAU/USD, which is Gold, with a 0.05 lot size a conservative and responsible position. The firm's rules clearly stated a maximum floating drawdown limit of minus $100 on my account at any one time. Knowing this, I placed my stop loss at minus $80, giving myself a $20 buffer below the allowed limit specifically to avoid any issues. Any reasonable trader would consider that more than enough protection.
What happened next was completely unacceptable. My stop loss did not trigger at minus $80. It did not even trigger at minus $100, which was the firm's own stated limit. My position was closed at approximately minus $150, a full $50 beyond my stop loss and $50 beyond the maximum drawdown rule. The account was then flagged for violating that very rule a rule I had carefully and intentionally taken steps to avoid breaking.
I gave the firm the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was a one-time technical issue, maybe a spike. So I moved on to a second account. The exact same thing happened. This time it was a completely normal trading day, no major news events, no economic releases, nothing unusual happening in the market at all. My stop loss was again ignored and the account was closed at minus $130, once again breaching the drawdown rule through no fault of my own. At that point this is no longer a coincidence. This is a pattern, and a deliberate one.
Now let's talk about the spreads on Gold, because this is another serious red flag that every potential client needs to know about. The spread on XAU/USD at FTM regularly sits between 45 and 50 pips. For context, a healthy and competitive spread on Gold from a reputable broker or prop firm should be somewhere between 15 and 25 pips under normal conditions, and even lower with some providers. A spread of 45 to 50 on Gold is not just uncompetitive, it is predatory. The moment you open a trade you are already deep in the red before the market has moved a single tick. On a tight drawdown account this artificially inflated spread eats directly into your allowed loss buffer before you have even had a chance to manage the trade.
Let me explain the bigger picture so that traders of all experience levels can understand what is happening here. On a $10,000 account, FTM's maximum drawdown rule is set at minus 1% at any one time, which equals minus $100. This sounds manageable until you factor in a 45 to 50 pip spread on Gold that immediately puts you in a loss the moment you enter, combined with stop losses that trigger far beyond the price you actually set, and rules that are then enforced against you even when the breach was caused entirely by their own execution failures. The firm collects the evaluation fee. The trader loses the account. The firm profits. It really is that simple.
I do not use the word liars lightly, but when a company's own rules state that your stop loss protects your account and their platform refuses to honour that stop loss, not once but repeatedly across multiple accounts, there is no other word for it. FTM in my direct experience is dishonest, manipulative, and dangerous to your capital. The entire model appears designed to harvest evaluation fees while ensuring that traders fail regardless of how carefully they manage their risk.
If you are looking for a legitimate prop firm to grow your trading career, this is not it. There are honest firms out there that offer fair spreads, proper execution and transparent rules. FTM is none of those things. Do not give them your money, do not give them your time, and please share this so that other traders do not have to learn this lesson the hard and expensive way that I did. It is simply shameful and I recommend this firm to absolutely no one.
I don't usually leave negative reviews
I don't usually leave negative reviews, but this experience with Funded Trader Markets was so frustrating that I felt I needed to share.
I joined their affiliate program and actively promoted their platform. After generating referrals, I requested commission payment. Their team then asked me to provide proof of traffic source and advertising content (screenshots, links, etc.). I compiled everything and submitted everything they requested in detail.
Then… silence.
No response for several days. I contacted them multiple times but received no clear answer. Finally, when I did receive a response, I was informed that my commission would not be paid due to an implicit “PPC violation.”
The problem is:
This had never been clearly communicated before in my case.
I provided all the requested evidence transparently.
Responses only come after a long period of no communication.
In my view, this feels like an unnecessary delay, followed by a reason for refusing payment instead of a fair review process.
I understand that companies need to enforce rules. However, communication and transparency are crucial—especially when affiliate partners are genuinely working hard and attracting traffic.
Currently, based on my experience, I cannot recommend their affiliate program. If you plan to promote them, ensure you receive clear confirmation of their traffic policy beforehand and maintain detailed records of everything.
I hope the support team will improve response times and process affiliate payments more transparently in the future.
Worst company ever payout rejected for…
Worst company ever payout rejected for no reason account breached
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
