Rules compared
| Rule | FundedNext | Goat Funded Trader |
|---|---|---|
| Market | Forex / CFD | Forex / CFD |
| Phases | Two-phase | Two-phase |
| Eval cost (mid tier) | $480 | $220 |
| Profit target | 8% + 5% | 8% + 5% |
| Max drawdown | Static · 10% | Static · 10% |
| Daily loss limit | 5% | 5% |
| Consistency rule | None | None |
| Min trading days | 5 | 3 |
| Max days | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| Profit split | 90% | 90% |
| 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 | FundedNext | Goat Funded Trader |
|---|---|---|
| Pass rate | 25.0% | 25.0% |
| Payout rate (if passed) | 54.4% | 54.4% |
| Joint withdrawal probability | 13.6% | 13.6% |
| Expected P&L over 50 challenges | -$14.9k | -$5.2k |
| Failures from drawdown breach | 10% | 10% |
| Failures from daily loss | 30% | 30% |
Which should you pick?
FundedNext: FundedNext's stellar model has a one-phase option with a 15% profit target — one of the highest in the space, offset by generous drawdown. Two-phase Evaluation is closer to FTMO's structure at a slightly lower cost. Payout track record is strong; the choice between models is really a question of trader style.
Goat Funded Trader: Goat runs aggressive promo pricing and a mid-generous rule set. One-phase Instant options are the marketing hook but come with tighter drawdown. Two-phase Standard is closer to FTMO. Payout track record is developing.
On the numbers above, FundedNext 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 FundedNext or Goat Funded Trader easier to pass?+
In our simulation of a balanced 50%-win-rate trader, FundedNext passes 25.0% of the time and Goat Funded Trader passes 25.0% — so FundedNext 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, FundedNext or Goat Funded Trader?+
The mid-tier evaluation costs $480 at FundedNext and $220 at Goat Funded Trader. Sticker price is the wrong comparison though: over 50 attempted challenges our simulation nets -$14.9k at FundedNext versus -$5.2k at Goat Funded Trader, because a cheaper eval you fail more often is not cheaper.
Which pays out more reliably, FundedNext or Goat Funded Trader?+
Conditional on passing, our model gives FundedNext a 54.4% chance of reaching a first payout versus 54.4% at Goat Funded Trader. End to end — pass and withdraw — that is 13.6% vs 13.6%. Profit splits are 90% and 90%.
What is the biggest rule difference between FundedNext and Goat Funded Trader?+
FundedNext uses a static drawdown of 10% with a 5% daily loss limit; Goat Funded Trader uses a static drawdown of 10% with a 5% daily loss limit. Goat Funded Trader 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 FundedNext comparisons
Based on publicly listed rules as of 2026-07-15. Independent — not affiliated with FundedNext or Goat Funded Trader. Rules change; verify before paying. Simulations are estimates, not guarantees.