Rules compared
| Rule | Alpha Capital | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| Market | Forex / CFD | Forex / CFD |
| Phases | Two-phase | Two-phase |
| Eval cost (mid tier) | $500 | $175 |
| Profit target | 8% + 5% | 8% + 5% |
| Max drawdown | Static · 10% | Static · 8% |
| Daily loss limit | 5% | 5% |
| Consistency rule | None | None |
| Min trading days | 3 | 3 |
| Max days | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Profit split | 80% | 80% |
| Payout buffer | 1% | 1% |
| Trailing on funded | No | No |
| Payout frequency | Every 14 days | Every 7 days |
Simulated outcomes, same trader
Identical balanced archetype (50% win rate, 1.2R average winner, 3 trades a day), 10,000 simulated evaluations against each firm's exact ruleset.
| Metric | Alpha Capital | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| Pass rate | 25.0% | 23.9% |
| Payout rate (if passed) | 54.4% | 53.3% |
| Joint withdrawal probability | 13.6% | 12.8% |
| Expected P&L over 50 challenges | -$16k | -$4.1k |
| Failures from drawdown breach | 10% | 14% |
| Failures from daily loss | 30% | 29% |
Which should you pick?
Alpha Capital: Alpha Capital's two-phase model is a close FTMO clone at a lower price point. Generous news-trading and holding rules relative to competitors. Payout reliability is decent but younger than FTMO/FundedNext — factor that into long-run EV.
FundingPips: FundingPips' three-phase model is longer than most, but the eval fee is among the lowest in the space, which materially improves cost-adjusted EV. Payouts are frequent when funded. Best for patient traders comfortable with a longer evaluation runway.
On the numbers above, Alpha Capital is the better expected-value choice for a balanced profile — but archetypes are not you. A scalper and a swing trader can flip this ranking entirely, because drawdown type punishes lumpy P&L far more than frequent small P&L. Run your own drawdown numbers first, then simulate your real stats.
Frequently asked
Is Alpha Capital or FundingPips easier to pass?+
In our simulation of a balanced 50%-win-rate trader, Alpha Capital passes 25.0% of the time and FundingPips passes 23.9% — so Alpha Capital is the easier evaluation for that profile. The gap is driven mostly by drawdown type (Static vs Static) and the number of phases.
Which is cheaper, Alpha Capital or FundingPips?+
The mid-tier evaluation costs $500 at Alpha Capital and $175 at FundingPips. Sticker price is the wrong comparison though: over 50 attempted challenges our simulation nets -$16k at Alpha Capital versus -$4.1k at FundingPips, because a cheaper eval you fail more often is not cheaper.
Which pays out more reliably, Alpha Capital or FundingPips?+
Conditional on passing, our model gives Alpha Capital a 54.4% chance of reaching a first payout versus 53.3% at FundingPips. End to end — pass and withdraw — that is 13.6% vs 12.8%. Profit splits are 80% and 80%.
What is the biggest rule difference between Alpha Capital and FundingPips?+
Alpha Capital uses a static drawdown of 10% with a 5% daily loss limit; FundingPips uses a static drawdown of 8% with a 5% daily loss limit. FundingPips is the stricter ruleset for most trading styles.
Compare both firms using YOUR trading stats
Log your trades in the journal, push your real win rate and R-multiple into the simulator, and see which of these two rulesets you actually clear.
Run my simulationMore Alpha Capital comparisons
Based on publicly listed rules as of 2026-07-15. Independent — not affiliated with Alpha Capital or FundingPips. Rules change; verify before paying. Simulations are estimates, not guarantees.