Prop Firm Hub

-Which rules are you referring to? MyForexFunds (MFF) is probably the best option above all others, but if you are particular about some specific rules, then it may or may not be suitable.

-Yes. I think that most of the comparative analysis that we conduct has to be a little hypothetical (and diluted) in nature since we just do not have all of the data available to us. It is also difficult when models differ between firms.

-I hope that you are joking.

Let's compare their Discord server stats (not sure how reliable those are but still)

MFF Evaluation Live (=Funded): 3207
MFFX Funded Traders: 433 (13.5% of MFF)

MFF All Members: 208245
MFFX All Members: 47845 (23% of MFF)

I won't debate your statistics from discord. But super irrelevant.

Not joking, the megalith of grifters is back.

Glow- node prop firm offer a 50% discount on a 5k evaluation account in two stages, for only $25
-------
goal of first stage $400
goal of secound stage $250
---------
evaluation is not tied to a specific time
$250 daily drawdown
maximum account withdrawal is $500
---------
Profit splite to 90% to 80%
------------
https://glow-node.com/#a_aid=Darwesh

Hey!

I have seen some buzz regarding - > https://fortunesfunding.com/ lately

They have an odd similarwebb trend

With a huge explosion at first and an exponential decrease from then.

Some alleged payout proofs in discord, although not so many posts of deel screens etc.


Is there anybody here that has traded with them and gotten a payout?

https://fidelcrest.com/news/may-offe...campaign=2FOR1

I just got this promotion emailed to me. What opinions do you have of this company? Thank you.

she will eat the competition


reviews are quite awful, if they're not paying out they might as well offer 10 for 1, its same thing.

What account size do you prefer for multiple accounts?
For example lets say for MyFF 600K max allowed you choose (2 * 300K or 3 *200K or 6 * 100K) assuming price difference is more or less same and reasons?

Its bots. Fundednext does it also and a few others.

My preference goes for 200K mainly because:
1. 6 x 100K it would be too many accounts to manage. Between 200K and 300K/400K I prefer to have lower payouts. I believe that (most) props don't like people with high payouts and will find a reason for not paying, so I prefer 3x200K than 2x300K.
Maybe this is not important for FTMO or MFF but for the others I think it's better to be under the radar with lower payouts spread over the month.

2. If I make a mistake it's better to lose only a 200K account than 300K (or even 400K).

The bad part of having more accounts is that some prop may come with the hidden rule, like TPT implemented in their last weeks, which was not paying 4K in one account if you had -5K DD in another.

I'm curious to hear more opinions

I don't think they are super irrelevant when talking about how much bigger one company is versus another but ok. Where do your 1mil vs 1000 numbers come from? Those seem super off to me. I don't believe MFF has 1000x more customers

Traffic stats - Sem rush mostly, but also a slight exaggeration. The two firms aren't remotely even in size.

If you took FTMO data and MFF data and compared, it would be closer to realistic.

Also, you should assume that MFF being 3 yrs old and MFFX not even 1 year, that there is significantly more data.



USA - MFF keywords + traffic

USA - MFFX keywords + traffic

Its apples to apples as well as both firms dashboard is not on their base url.

-This is a very interesting question and something that I am surprised is not spoken about often, since I am personally always curious about this sort of thing.

There are pros and cons to both approaches.

I will start by saying that staying under the radar by having smaller profits on each account may not matter much if the total profit under your name/entity is basically the same. In other words, having (2) large accounts with 30k profit each, vs. having (30) smaller accounts with 2k profit each is still 60k profit (liability).

With That being said...

The larger account sizes offer much more draw-down for your money. This is a huge advantage, but requires much more startup capital. In some cases, the draw-down may be almost 2X more when looking at cost vs. value.

Having more draw-down allows for bigger profit-potential (and greater protection/recovery) - per account. However, in order to make the most of the account, you will generally have to trade more volume per account, which can lead to a lot of slippage, depending on how you trade. Larger accounts certainly require less leverage.

You are typically limited to around 2 accounts (assuming max sizes at MFF and FTMO), which can make things more difficult in terms of diversification and risk mitigation. After all, you cannot lose a small portion of a 300k account; once it goes bust, all of it is gone.

Trading larger account sizes may present greater psychological hurdles in lieu of trading smaller account sizes, even if the overall risk is the same.

-----------------------------

The smaller account sizes offer a much lower barrier-to-entry, which afford traders the option of getting their feet wet with much, much smaller risk-exposure (and startup capital). Contrary to the bigger accounts, the draw-down is smaller and will cost more per $.

The accounts may be easier to go bust on with the limited draw-down (per account) if a trader becomes overly-eager to expedite things (the temptation may be more prevalent, anyway), however, when trading smaller accounts in batches, you can lose a portion of 300k by going bust instead of the whole thing, which is a big advantage.

You will definitely want to use a trade copier, which may incur additional costs, but may also include free VPS, which can offer additional benefits in the form of better ping/execution times as well as additional protection from loss of internet/electricity etc.. The same can be done with larger accounts, though.

Having more accounts allows traders to further-diversify and minimize risk to a greater extent since you can effectively divide your accounts into batches and trade them separately to ensure that you always have backups in place, should you go bust with one batch of accounts. A similar approach can be used with larger accounts, though.

Having smaller accounts can allow traders to more-easily eliminate slippage, which can add up to a lot of profit over time, which can make up for the cost-differences between the two approaches. If you are trading properly, then slippage should not be much of an issue in any case. With smaller accounts, you can trade much smaller and still generate the same kind of profit that you can with larger accounts. Trading smaller has other benefits besides slippage reduction, such as psychological benefits that may be difficult to measure.

-----------------------------

Overall, the differences may be negligible to some. Some traders may decide that using (time to learn/costs to pay) a trade copier is just not worth it. Some traders may have no choice but to start out with smaller account sizes. There may be some firms that do not monitor smaller accounts very much (who knows?), or as previously-mentioned, may not give much notice to smaller profit sizes, even if the total across all accounts is rather large (again, who knows?).

Certainly, managing two large accounts is much simpler than having to deal with a trade copier. The barrier-to-entry is much higher with larger accounts. I think that most traders, especially those that do not have much experience, would benefit more from trading smaller accounts, especially in terms of all of the problems that we hear about regarding slippage and psychology etc..

If we look at MFF, and compare the 20k account with the 300k account, we can see the differences:

20k account - cost $139 each
300k account - cost $1389 each

You can currently have (30) $20k accounts or (2) $300k accounts. If you max out your allocations, you will have the same daily DD and max DD for both:

(30) 20k accounts = $30k daily DD & $72k max DD
(2) 300k accounts = $30k daily DD & $72k max DD

Cost for (30) 20k accounts = $4,170
Cost for (2) 300k accounts = $2,778

Both account sizes are refundable, so the cost v. reward argument may be a moot point.

Opinions are subjective and will vary, especially depending on each person's circumstances, experience and preferences et al..

I will say that there is something to be said about having smaller accounts that are spread out across multiple firms. This is probably the best way to ensure that you are staying under the radar while not restricting your earning potential. Regardless of the endeavor or investment, I have always believed in mitigating risk by way of diversification, and trading smaller accounts provides the best opportunity for that.

-They really are, though, because you are using discord stats as your basis for comparison. This not only assumes that most traders even use discord and have joined those servers, but that many traders have stuck around, even after MFF's discord went to crap and even stated that they would not provide the same level of support there.

According to MFF's website, their statistics for last February were 37,000 active, live funded accounts - just for evaluation model. I think that is a big jump from your cited 3,207 figure. As such, I think that Takisd is right to say that the comparison is irrelevant. To be fair.

I prefer the 100K account, the 200K account(s) offer a small discount at some firms and zero discount at the others, not enough to be significant. I simply started with the 100K and am most comfortable and the numbers are easy.
Starting small is fine too and actually may be a better solution as you can build quite a substantial amount of funding with very, very small outlay, simply by reinvesting refunded fees and profits. You can even start with a 10K account and just reinvest your first $1,000 in profit into 2 x100K or 1x 200K and repeat with the first 5k you make on that account. What's the initial outlay....$100-150 and you can wind up with 2 million in funding....slower grind, but less financial risk if you're not in a hurry.
I simply started with 2 x100K at FTMO 3 years ago (before they had a 200K) and that is simply my go-to at all of the firms I use.

-Absolutely. I think that using smaller accounts is the smartest approach, overall, but not totally necessary, depending on the person, their circumstances and experience etc.. My opinion of that might be different if the accounts were not refundable. Generally speaking, the more experience and capital that you have, the less that it probably matters... unless firms give more attention and scrutiny to larger account sizes.

As I roam around the prop space in my boredom I noticed that all the new ones are the same, few extra trading condition changes, all of them are doing giveaways.

Imagine thinking you will be a professional trader at a place that offers a lucky draw. Clown world.

Good post.
To me this is the most important.

I believe (without any solid knowledge) that a 12.000 payout will ring more bells than 3x4.000, specially in small firms and on those with "special" rules. The effort of looking for "mistakes" in 3x4000 is 3 times more than in 1x12.000. So I guess that below some threshold they just process the payout and let it go, not paying much attention or spending much time.

In bigger payouts maybe they are looking for the slightest thing that give them a chance of not paying like if the order was OK, if EA was used, if there were market conditions, if there was some VPN with different IP from a previous day, if the guy had any grid or martingale trading which can be considered gambling or even inventing that in China or in Argentina there was a symmetric trade of yours, more or less at the same time.

They may look at the overall profit of a trader as you say, yes, but the effort they will have analyzing all accounts will be much more.

Maybe I'm wrong but I prefer to keep payouts small.