FundingPips vs Blueberry Funded: Which Prop Firm Should You Choose in 2026?

FundingPips vs Blueberry Funded: Which Prop Firm Should You Choose in 2026?

Two firms, two very different bets on what a modern prop firm should look like.

FundingPips has spent four years quietly becoming one of the biggest names in the industry — $180M+ paid out, 52,000+ Trustpilot reviews, and a tiered profit split system that nobody else really copies. Blueberry Funded is the newer challenger, launched in 2024 by an ASIC-regulated broker, charging from $25 a challenge, with seven product variants and four supported platforms.

They're not really competing for the same trader. But they're often on the same shortlist for traders who've outgrown the cheapest entry-level firms and are looking for something with more substance. So which one's the right call?

Here's the honest comparison — rules, pricing, scaling, payouts, and the things you actually need to know before clicking buy.

TL;DR – FundingPips vs Blueberry Funded at a Glance

• Choose FundingPips if you want flexible payout cycles, a serious scaling tier (Hot Seat) that unlocks 100% splits at $2M, four distinct challenge formats, and the proven track record of $180M+ in payouts since 2022.
• Choose Blueberry Funded if you value broker backing from an ASIC-regulated firm, want the cheapest entry-level accounts in the industry ($25 starting), more platform choice (MT4, MT5, TradeLocker, DXtrade), and a wider menu of challenge formats including Synthetic and Rapid.
• Many traders run both — Blueberry for cheap, fast experiments; FundingPips for scaling a serious career account. It's a normal pattern in 2026.

Company Overview

FundingPips has been around since 2022, based in Dubai. Four years in, the firm has paid out over $180 million to traders, processed payouts for thousands of unique funded accounts, and built a Trustpilot rating of 4.5/5 from 52,000+ reviews — putting them comfortably in the top tier of prop firms by review volume alone. They run four CFD challenge programs and a four-level scaling plan that culminates in the "Hot Seat" tier, where everything changes.

Blueberry Funded is the newer name. Launched in 2024 by Dean Hyde, but with serious backing — the firm is part of the Blueberry Group, which has run Blueberry Markets (ASIC-regulated, FCA-registered) as a broker for over eight years. That broker backing is the single most distinctive thing about them: every Blueberry Funded trader is effectively trading on institutional infrastructure rather than a white-label setup. The firm holds a 4.1/5 Trustpilot rating — lower than FundingPips, but on a much smaller review base.

Two different propositions. One is the established mid-tier giant. The other is the broker-backed challenger.

💡 Why this matters: When firms collapse — and they do — it's almost always either regulatory action or the operator running out of cash. A broker-backed prop firm has structural advantages on both fronts. FundingPips' answer is volume and a four-year payout history. Blueberry's answer is institutional ownership. Both are legitimate hedges against the kind of collapses we've covered in posts like the MyForexFunds saga.

Challenge Programs Compared

Where they line up: both firms offer 1-Step, 2-Step, and Instant Funding evaluations. Where they diverge: the variants around those core programs.

FundingPips runs four CFD programs:

• 1 Step — single-phase, faster path to capital
• 2 Step — two-phase, the structurally safer option
• 2 Step Pro — tighter rules but daily payouts available
• Zero — instant funding, no evaluation, 95% split with 15% consistency

Blueberry Funded runs seven programs:

• 1-Step Challenge — single-phase, 10% target
• 2-Step Challenge — two-phase classic
• Prime 2-Step — Blueberry's flagship, balanced rules
• Rapid Challenge — fast-track with 7-day time limit
• Synthetic Challenge — for synthetic indices, from $25
• Instant Elite — instant funding, premium tier
• Instant Lite — instant funding, cheaper tier

Blueberry's breadth is more granular — there's a program for almost every trader profile, including some genuinely unusual ones like the Synthetic challenge for synthetic indices trading. FundingPips keeps the menu tighter but goes deeper on each program.

Evaluation Rules Compared

This is where the two firms really start to look different, and where most traders get caught out if they don't read the fine print.

2-Step: FundingPips 2 Step vs Blueberry Prime 2-Step

Both firms offer a classic two-phase evaluation, and on paper the headline numbers look similar. FundingPips 2 Step runs an 8% Phase 1 target (or 10% if you pick "Option Two" at purchase), 5% Phase 2 target, 10% max drawdown, 5% daily loss limit, and a minimum of 3 trading days per phase. Blueberry's Prime 2-Step runs 10% Phase 1 / 5% Phase 2, with broadly comparable drawdown structures.

The interesting differences:

• Static vs trailing drawdown: FundingPips uses static max drawdown on the 1-Step and 2-Step (a real selling point). Blueberry's drawdown structures vary by program — read the specific rules for the variant you're buying.
• Time limits: Neither firm imposes a time limit on the main 2-step programs. Blueberry's Rapid Challenge is the exception (7-day cap).
• Consistency rules: FundingPips applies a 35% consistency rule only on the On Demand payout option (90% split). Blueberry has explicitly removed many of its consistency-style restrictions in recent updates, including dropping the controversial 150% margin rule after trader pushback.
• News trading: Blueberry permits it on most programs. FundingPips has tighter restrictions tied to payout cycle and rule set.

1-Step: FundingPips 1 Step vs Blueberry 1-Step

Similar story on the 1-step versions. FundingPips runs a 10% profit target with 6% static max drawdown and 3% daily — the static drawdown being a meaningful upgrade over the trailing structures most 1-step competitors use. Blueberry's 1-Step uses a 10% target with 6% max drawdown and 4% daily.

The kicker: FundingPips' static drawdown means your downside is calculated from the starting balance, not from your equity peak. So a winning trade doesn't shrink your room to operate. That's a structural advantage worth understanding properly — we've covered why in our deep dive on trailing drawdown in prop firms.

Instant Funding: FundingPips Zero vs Blueberry Instant Elite/Lite

This is where the comparison gets sharpest.

FundingPips Zero advertises a 95% split. Sounds amazing. The catch: a 15% consistency rule applies on every payout (strict), a 3% safety cushion means your first 3% of profit isn't withdrawable (effectively turning the Zero into a 1-step challenge with extra steps), and the rules are noticeably tighter than standard programs. Priced from $69 to $499.

Blueberry Instant Elite and Instant Lite are positioned cheaper, starting from $25 with promo codes. Rules are different — generally more permissive on consistency but the trade-offs vary by tier.

Honestly, no instant funding product from any firm is genuinely "instant" in the sense most traders hope for. Both of these have rules you need to read before buying. But Blueberry's instant options are meaningfully cheaper to test.

For a broader read on how rule structures catch traders out across the industry, see our piece on why most traders fail prop firm challenges.

Profit Splits — Where the Two Firms Really Diverge

This is the single biggest structural difference between FundingPips and Blueberry Funded.

FundingPips uses tiered profit splits based on your payout cycle choice. This is genuinely unique in the industry, and worth understanding because it changes the economics significantly. On standard 1 Step and 2 Step Master accounts:

• 60% split if you choose weekly payouts
• 80% split for bi-weekly
• 90% split for on-demand (with the 35% consistency rule)
• 100% split for monthly payouts

That's not a typo. A FundingPips trader on the monthly cycle gets 100% of the profit they generate — the highest standard split in the industry. The trade-off is waiting 30 days between withdrawals.

Blueberry Funded runs a simpler structure: 80% split starting, scaling to 90% through their scaling program. No tiers based on payout cycle, no payout-frequency game theory. Just a straightforward "earn it through performance" model.

Which is better depends entirely on how you trade and what you need from your cash flow:

• If you want weekly access to capital for living expenses or to fund other accounts, FundingPips' 60% weekly is comparable to Blueberry's 80% bi-weekly when you account for cycle frequency. You lose split percentage in exchange for liquidity.
• If you don't need the money urgently and want to maximise your total takeaway, FundingPips' monthly 100% beats anything Blueberry offers on profit share, full stop.
• If you find tiered systems overcomplicated and just want to trade and get paid, Blueberry's flat 80–90% is genuinely easier to live with.

Scaling Plans

Both firms scale to $2 million in funded capital. The mechanics are different.

FundingPips' Hot Seat program is the headline. Four levels — Launchpad (Level 1, 20% capital boost), Ascender (30%), Trailblazer (40%), and Hot Seat (Level 4). At Hot Seat, traders unlock:

• 100% profit split across all payout cycles (overriding the tiered system entirely)
• Doubled initial balance
• On-demand payouts with no consistency rule
• Monthly $100–$500 performance bonuses
• Up to $2M in total capital allocation

To reach Hot Seat: 16 successful payable periods plus 40% cumulative profit. Realistically 6–12 months of consistent profitability, depending on how aggressively you trade.

Blueberry Funded's scaling plan runs on fixed three-month cycles. Every three months, if you've generated 10% net profit and processed at least four payouts within that period, your account balance increases by 25%. Profit splits scale up to 90% along the way.

The 25%-per-cycle is more conservative than FundingPips' bigger boosts, but it's predictable. You know exactly what you need to do every three months, and the goalposts don't move. FundingPips' system has bigger upside; Blueberry's has clearer structure.

Pricing & Account Sizes

This is where Blueberry's broker backing translates into a real consumer-facing advantage.

FundingPips pricing is competitive but standard for the industry. The 2 Step Pro starts at around $29 for a small account. A $50K 2 Step costs $280; a $100K runs in the $400–$500 range depending on variant.

Blueberry Funded pricing starts cheaper than almost any other firm in the market — $25 for a Synthetic $5K account, $35 for a 2-Step $5K, $55 for a Prime 2-Step $5K. A $100K Prime 2-Step runs around $449. With Blueberry's various promotional codes (including a current 30% off offer through some affiliate channels), the effective entry is even lower.

If you're testing a new strategy and want to fail cheap, Blueberry's $25 entry is genuinely hard to argue with. If you're committing to a serious challenge and want the established firm with the bigger payout track record, FundingPips' pricing is normal for the value you're getting.

💸 Check the latest verified discount codes for both firms on our discounts page before buying.

Platforms — Where Blueberry Wins on Choice

FundingPips supports three platforms: MT5, MatchTrader, and cTrader.

Blueberry Funded supports four: MT4, MT5, TradeLocker, and DXtrade.

Blueberry has MT4 (which FundingPips dropped) plus TradeLocker and DXtrade, which are newer, cleaner, web-based alternatives gaining traction in 2026. FundingPips has cTrader, which Blueberry doesn't currently offer.

For most traders, MT5 is the default and either firm works. If you specifically prefer MT4, you need Blueberry. If you want cTrader's order book, FundingPips is the only option here.

Payouts & Withdrawals

FundingPips: First payout typically 7 days after funding. Subsequent payouts depend on your chosen cycle — weekly, bi-weekly, on-demand, or monthly. Withdrawal fees of $10 per transaction. Minimum withdrawal is 1% of initial account balance. Processed every Tuesday, typically 1–3 business days to land.

Blueberry Funded: First payout 14 days after first funded trade. Standard bi-weekly cycle after that, with an optional 7-day payout add-on available at purchase. No fixed withdrawal fee mentioned. Processed via RiseWorks, typically in cryptocurrency (USDC/USDT) with bank transfer alternatives. 1–2 business days settlement.

Both firms process payouts reliably — that's confirmed across thousands of Trustpilot reports and trader Discord threads. Where they differ is the cadence flexibility. FundingPips offers weekly through monthly. Blueberry sticks to 14-day standard with the option to upgrade to 7-day.

For traders who want maximum liquidity, FundingPips' weekly option (at 60% split) is unique. For traders who just want clean, predictable payouts every two weeks, Blueberry's structure is cleaner.

Trading Instruments

Both firms cover the core CFD asset classes traders care about:

FundingPips: Forex (60+ pairs), indices, metals, energies, cryptocurrencies. No stocks, no futures.

Blueberry Funded: Forex (60+ pairs), indices (NASDAQ, S&P 500, etc.), commodities (Gold, Oil), cryptocurrencies (52 crypto pairs at 1:2 leverage), energies, and synthetic indices via the Synthetic challenge.

Blueberry's crypto offering is the broader of the two (52 pairs vs FundingPips' more curated list), and the Synthetic challenge is genuinely unique — there aren't many prop firms doing synthetic indices well. If crypto is core to your strategy, Blueberry has the edge.

Neither firm offers stock CFDs at scale or futures. If you need futures, you'd be looking at FundedNext Futures, Apex, or TopStep instead.

Trust & Track Record

Worth being honest about this part.

FundingPips' trust case is built on volume and track record. Four years of operations, $180M+ paid out, 52,000+ Trustpilot reviews at 4.5/5, monthly payout activity that's verifiable across multiple independent reviewers. The risks: tiered systems are easy to misunderstand, the Zero account's restrictions catch some traders out, and like any pure prop firm, the operation depends on the company's continued cash management.

Blueberry Funded's trust case is structurally different. They have less track record (founded 2024) but significantly stronger institutional backing — the ASIC-regulated broker behind them has been operating for 8+ years. Trustpilot is 4.1/5, lower than FundingPips, and the smaller review base means individual experiences carry more weight in the average. The risks: the lower review base, the firm's relative youth, and consistency of rules during scale.

Both are legitimate. Neither is a one-month-old operation with no track record. The choice between them is partly about which trust signal you value more — established payout history (FundingPips) or institutional broker ownership (Blueberry).

Pros & Cons

FundingPips — Pros

• $180M+ in cumulative payouts since 2022, with 52,000+ Trustpilot reviews backing it up
• Tiered profit splits including a 100% monthly option (genuinely unique)
• Hot Seat scaling tier with on-demand 100% splits at $2M
• Static drawdown on 1-Step and 2-Step (no trailing surprise)
• Fast 1-3 business day payout processing
• Evaluation fee refund at 4th successful payout (most accounts)

FundingPips — Cons

• Tiered profit splits can confuse new traders
• Zero account has restrictive rules that limit its appeal
• $10 withdrawal fee per transaction
• No MT4 support
• 35% consistency rule on the On Demand cycle catches scalpers

Blueberry Funded — Pros

• ASIC-regulated broker backing (Blueberry Markets) — rare in the industry
• Cheapest entry-level pricing in the market (from $25)
• Four platform choices including MT4, MT5, TradeLocker, DXtrade
• Seven distinct challenge formats including Synthetic and Rapid
• 60+ forex pairs, 52 crypto pairs, broad asset coverage
• Removed the controversial 150% margin rule after trader feedback (responsive to community)

Blueberry Funded — Cons

• Newer firm (founded 2024) with shorter payout track record
• Trustpilot 4.1/5 is solid but lower than top-tier firms
• Profit splits cap at 90% (no 100% option)
• Some account types have stricter consistency requirements that aren't immediately obvious
• Withdrawals primarily through cryptocurrency (RiseWorks) — fine for many, friction for some

Who Each Firm Suits Best

FundingPips is the better choice if you...

• Want a proven payout history with $180M+ already disbursed
• Are willing to wait monthly for 100% splits — best total takeaway in the industry
• Plan to scale aggressively and aim for Hot Seat ($2M, 100% split, monthly bonuses)
• Trade strategies that work well with static drawdown rather than trailing
• Like payout cycle flexibility (weekly through monthly options)
• Want a firm with established Trustpilot volume at 52,000+ reviews

Blueberry Funded is the better choice if you...

• Value institutional backing from an ASIC-regulated broker
• Want the cheapest entry point to test a new strategy ($25 Synthetic)
• Prefer MT4 specifically (FundingPips doesn't offer it)
• Want broader crypto coverage (52 pairs vs FundingPips' curated list)
• Like a simpler split structure (flat 80% to 90%, no payout-cycle game)
• Trade synthetic indices as part of your strategy
• Want TradeLocker or DXtrade as your platform

Final Verdict – FundingPips vs Blueberry Funded

There's no objectively better firm here. They're genuinely built for different traders.

FundingPips wins on: payout track record, scaling ceiling (Hot Seat), profit split maximum (100% on monthly cycle), and a longer operational history.

Blueberry Funded wins on: institutional broker backing, entry-level pricing, platform choice, asset breadth, and challenge format variety.

If you're a confident trader scaling a serious challenge account and you can wait for monthly cycles, FundingPips is hard to beat. The 100% monthly split and the Hot Seat tier represent some of the best economics in the entire industry, and the track record is right there in the payout numbers.

If you're newer to prop trading, want to test cheaply, value the trust signal of ASIC-regulated broker ownership, or specifically need MT4 or the synthetic indices option, Blueberry Funded is the call. The $25 entry point alone makes it the lowest-risk way to test prop trading seriously in 2026.

And there's no rule saying you can't run both. A lot of serious traders run experimental accounts at Blueberry alongside their main career account at FundingPips — different firms, different purposes, smarter risk distribution. That's the modern way to do this.

Compare More Prop Firms

If you want to weigh either firm against the wider field, head over to Prop Firms Compared and filter by:

• Account size — $5K up to $200K+
• Number of evaluation steps — Instant, 1-step, 2-step, or 3-step
• Asset class — forex, futures, indices, crypto, commodities

Or check the latest verified prop firm discount codes before buying a challenge.

FAQs – FundingPips vs Blueberry Funded

Is FundingPips or Blueberry Funded better for beginners?

Blueberry Funded for absolute beginners on a tight budget — the $25 Synthetic challenge is the cheapest serious starting point in the market. FundingPips for beginners who want a proven track record and don't mind paying slightly more for the established firm with $180M+ in verified payouts.

Which firm has a higher profit split?

FundingPips on the technical answer — the 100% monthly cycle on standard accounts beats anything Blueberry offers (which caps at 90%). But you're trading 30-day cycles for that 100%. Blueberry's flat 80–90% is structurally simpler.

Which firm pays out faster?

FundingPips if you want weekly cycles (at 60% split). Blueberry has a standard 14-day cycle, optionally upgraded to 7-day at purchase. Processing speed is similar — both firms settle within 1–3 business days.

Which firm has stronger institutional backing?

Blueberry Funded — they're owned by Blueberry Markets, an ASIC-regulated broker operating for 8+ years. FundingPips has stronger payout track record, but Blueberry has the regulated parent.

Can I trade futures with either firm?

No — both are pure CFD prop firms. For futures, look at FundedNext Futures, Apex, or TopStep.

Which firm has better platform options?

Blueberry Funded — four platforms (MT4, MT5, TradeLocker, DXtrade) vs FundingPips' three (MT5, MatchTrader, cTrader). Blueberry has MT4 if you specifically want it; FundingPips has cTrader if you specifically want that.

Which firm has the bigger scaling plan?

Same headline cap — both reach $2M. FundingPips' Hot Seat reaches it faster with bigger boosts and a 100% split at the top. Blueberry's plan is more conservative (25% per three-month cycle) but more predictable.

Are both firms legit?

Yes — both are legitimate operations. FundingPips has the longer track record (four years, $180M+ paid). Blueberry has the regulated broker parent. Both pay reliably and have substantial trader bases.

Last updated: 7 May 2026. Rules, pricing and challenge structures change frequently in the prop firm industry. Always verify current details on the official firm websites or via our live comparison tool before purchasing.

Risk disclaimer: Trading involves substantial risk of loss. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This article is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice.