Sure Leverage Funding vs FundingPips (2026)
By Jordan Hayes·
Sure Leverage Funding vs FundingPips (2026): Full Comparison
Key Takeaways
FundingPips' 2-Step Standard $100k challenge costs $399 and refunds that fee after your 4th successful payout, making it effectively free for traders who stay funded long-term.
Sure Leverage Funding allows news trading on all challenge types and funded accounts, while FundingPips restricts funded-account profits from trades opened less than 5 hours before a high-impact release.
SLF's static drawdown on its Instant Funding Standard account keeps your floor fixed regardless of profit growth; FundingPips Zero uses a trailing drawdown that tightens as your balance climbs.
Both firms are Dubai-based. Both offer multiple challenge paths, static drawdowns on their core products, and payouts claimed to process within 24 hours. On paper, they look almost identical. Dig one layer deeper and the differences are real, and for the wrong trader type, they matter a lot.
This comparison covers the $5k to $100k range across both firms' flagship 2-step models and instant funding programs, based on verified rule data as of June 2026.
| Feature | Sure Leverage Funding | FundingPips |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Step $100k price | Not independently confirmed (as of June 2026) | $399 (2-Step Standard) |
| 2-Step profit targets | Phase 1: 8%, Phase 2: 5% | Phase 1: 8%, Phase 2: 5% |
| Max drawdown (2-Step) | 8% static | 10% static |
| Daily loss limit (2-Step) | 5% | 5% |
| Minimum trading days | None | 3 days per phase |
| Time limit | Unlimited | Unlimited |
| News trading (funded) | Fully allowed | Profits excluded in 5-min window (unless opened 5+ hrs prior or using on-demand cycle) |
| Starting profit split | 80% | 60-100% (depends on payout cycle chosen) |
| Max profit split | 100% | 100% |
| Scaling cap | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 |
| Instant funding drawdown | 8% static (Standard) | 5% trailing (Zero) |
| Platforms | MT5, TradeLocker, Match Trader | MT5, cTrader (+$20), Match Trader |
| Fee refund | No | Yes, after 4th payout (1-Step and 2-Step only) |
| Trustpilot rating | 4.2-4.5/5 (~800+ reviews) | 4.5/5 (52,000+ reviews) |
Sure Leverage Funding launched in November 2023 under SureLeverage/ASAP Solutions FZ-LLC, headquartered in Ras Al Khaimah, UAE. It offers seven challenge types spanning 2-Step, 3-Step, 1-Step, Instant Funding Standard, Instant Funding Pro, EA Challenge, and No Max DD. Maximum account size is $200k per account, with a $400k total funding cap across accounts.
FundingPips is an older firm, operating since approximately 2021-2022 under FP Funding LLC in Dubai. It runs four challenge programs: 1-Step, 2-Step Standard, 2-Step Pro, and Zero (instant). Max account size is $100k per account, though the Hot Seat scaling track can eventually reach $2 million in total allocated capital. As of June 2026, FundingPips claims $257 million paid out across 127,000+ verified payouts and holds a 4.5/5 Trustpilot rating from over 52,000 reviews.
The review history gap between them is significant. SLF has 800+ Trustpilot reviews after roughly two and a half years. FundingPips has 52,000+ reviews across three to four years. That's not just a numbers difference; it represents a materially deeper pool of payout experiences to evaluate.
Both firms run structurally similar 2-phase challenges on their standard track.
Profit targets are nearly identical. Both ask for 8% in Phase 1 and 5% in Phase 2. SLF caps its drawdown at 8% maximum loss, while FundingPips allows 10%. That 2% difference on a $100k account is $2,000 of extra buffer at FundingPips.
Minimum trading days separate them. FundingPips requires 3 trading days per phase. SLF has no minimum day requirement. For traders who can execute cleanly in two sessions, SLF lets them move faster. For traders who need the structure of a minimum period before cashing out, neither is particularly strict.
Consistency rule. SLF's 2-Step and 3-Step challenges cap any single day's profit at 25% of total profit. This catches traders who make 90% of their gains in one session and then request a payout. FundingPips' equivalent rule applies only to traders who choose the On-Demand payout cycle (35% consistency threshold). Weekly and monthly payout cycles at FundingPips have no consistency rule at all.
SLF's 1-Step targets 8% with 4% daily and 8% max drawdown, leverage 1:50. FundingPips' 1-Step asks for 10% with 3% daily and 6% static max drawdown. SLF's 1-Step is more forgiving on the drawdown side. FundingPips' single-phase has tighter daily limits, which demands cleaner position sizing.
This is where the two firms diverge most sharply.
SLF's Instant Funding Standard uses an 8% static drawdown. Your floor never moves up as profits grow. That's structurally different from most instant funding accounts in the market, which use trailing drawdowns that tighten as your equity climbs.
FundingPips Zero uses a 5% trailing drawdown. If you start at $100k and run to $110k in profit, your drawdown floor is now at $104,500. That trailing effect punishes profitable traders who size normally. SLF's static model doesn't have that problem.
The tradeoff: FundingPips Zero starts at $69 for a $5k account ($499 for $100k). It also comes with a 15% consistency rule and a requirement to hit 7 profitable days per 30-day period. SLF's Instant Funding Standard has the 25% consistency rule and the floating loss rule (two breaches of 1% floating loss closes the account, on accounts purchased after February 2026).
Both firms offer static drawdowns on their 2-Step products, which is the feature traders care most about. Static means the floor is set from your initial balance and does not move up as you profit. On a $100k account with 10% drawdown at FundingPips, your hard floor stays at $90k whether you're at $100k or $120k in equity. Same principle applies at SLF with its 8% limit.
One rule at SLF that does not exist at FundingPips: the Floating Loss Rule, which applies to accounts purchased after February 2, 2026. A breach occurs when your open equity drops 1% below your starting balance. A second breach closes the account. This rule applies during open trades, not just at close. Traders with high-volatility strategies or wide stops relative to account size need to account for this. You can pay to remove it as an add-on on certain SLF account types.
FundingPips has no equivalent floating loss rule on its 2-Step Standard or 1-Step accounts.
SLF starts traders at 80% profit split across its standard challenges. The scaling plan allows progression to 90% (after 10% cumulative gain over four months with 25% consistency maintained) and eventually to 100%. Payouts are processed every 14 days (every 4 weeks for EA Challenge). SLF claims a 24-hour payout guarantee with a stated average processing time under 16 hours, and pays a 10% bonus profit split if a payout is delayed beyond 24 hours.
Minimum payout is $100 with a 2% fee ($10 minimum charge). Payouts go via cryptocurrency (USDT) or bank wire.
FundingPips' payout structure is more complex because the profit split depends on the payout cycle you select at account setup:
Monthly: 60% split, no consistency rule
Bi-weekly: 75% split, no consistency rule
Weekly: 80% split, no consistency rule
On-Demand: 90% split, 35% consistency rule required
The 4th successful payout triggers a full fee refund on 1-Step and 2-Step Standard accounts. On a $100k 2-Step Standard at $399, that's a meaningful return of capital for traders who stay funded. The 2-Step Pro and Zero accounts do not include the fee refund.
FundingPips also applies a $10 withdrawal fee per transaction. Minimum withdrawal is 1% of the initial account balance.
Traders who want the highest splits immediately should pick SLF (80% from day one). Traders who prefer weekly predictability and don't mind 80% should use FundingPips' weekly cycle with no consistency strings attached.
Both firms advertise $2 million in maximum capital.
SLF's scaling plan: A 25% balance increase after 10% cumulative gain over four months while respecting the consistency rule. Split climbs from 80% to 90% on the way up. Theoretical cap is $2 million in total managed capital.
FundingPips' Hot Seat plan is structured across four levels:
Level 1 (Launchpad): 20% capital boost, max drawdown increases 1%
Level 2 (Ascender): 30% capital boost, total drawdown increases 2%, daily drawdown +1%
Level 3 (Trailblazer): 40% capital boost, max drawdown at 13%
Level 4 (Hot Seat): Balance doubled, 100% profit split, on-demand payouts, up to $2 million capital access, monthly performance bonuses
Hot Seat requires reaching the 16th successful payout period and 40% cumulative profit. That's a multi-year milestone, not something most traders hit in their first year. But the drawdown increase at each level is a real operational benefit for experienced traders who need more room.
SLF's scaling structure is less granular. FundingPips' four-level Hot Seat rewards consistent performers more explicitly.
Both firms support MT5 and Match Trader. The third option diverges: SLF offers TradeLocker, while FundingPips offers cTrader (at an additional $20 fee).
TradeLocker integrates with TradingView for charting, which is a meaningful advantage for traders who built their analysis workflow on that platform. cTrader is better for algorithmic traders who want Level II pricing visibility and ECN-style order execution.
MT5 is free at both firms and is the standard choice for most traders unless you have a specific reason to switch.
Instruments are broadly similar: forex pairs, metals, indices, energies, and crypto. SLF supports accounts up to $200k; FundingPips caps at $100k for a single account (though combined capital through scaling can exceed that significantly).
This is one of the most practical differences between the two firms.
SLF allows news trading on all challenge types and all funded accounts with no restrictions. There is a 2-minute rule against tick scalping (trades must be open for more than 2 minutes), but no news windows and no profit exclusions for trading around NFP, FOMC, or CPI releases.
FundingPips allows news trading during the evaluation phase on all accounts. Once funded, the rules tighten. Profits from trades opened less than 5 hours before a high-impact release and closed within the 5-minute window before or after the event are excluded from your payout. On-Demand payout cycle traders are exempt from this restriction. The Zero account prohibits news trading entirely on funded accounts.
If you have an event-driven strategy or regularly trade economic releases, SLF's rule structure is simpler and more permissive. FundingPips' restriction is workable for traders who open positions well in advance of news (5+ hours), but it penalizes traders who time entries around specific release times.
| Trader Type | Better Fit | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| News trader / event-driven | Sure Leverage Funding | No profit exclusion windows on funded accounts |
| Swing trader (multi-day holds) | FundingPips 2-Step | No minimum day requirements; weekend holding allowed |
| Low drawdown, tight strategy | FundingPips | 10% max drawdown gives more buffer than SLF's 8% |
| Instant funding preference | Sure Leverage Funding | Static drawdown on Instant Standard vs trailing on FP Zero |
| Algo / EA trader | FundingPips (cTrader + MT5) | Stronger EA marketplace and cTrader for automated execution |
| Budget-first entry | FundingPips 2-Step Pro | $29 for a $5k account; SLF's cheapest starts at $25 for a 3-Step $5k |
| Long-term scaling ambition | FundingPips | Hot Seat's structured four-level plan with explicit drawdown increases |
| High-frequency-style scalper | Neither | Both prohibit tick scalping and HFT |
FundingPips' $257 million paid across 127,000+ verified payouts is the most documented payout history of any firm PFMatrix tracks. The 4.5/5 Trustpilot rating from 52,000+ reviews provides statistical confidence in payout reliability.
SLF's $2.2 million paid out with 800+ Trustpilot reviews reflects its newer market position. The 24-hour payout guarantee backed by a 10% bonus split for delays is a stronger contractual commitment than most firms offer. Trustpilot reviews are mixed, with some reports of payout delays on instant funded accounts and some dispute over rule interpretation. The firm's response pattern on Trustpilot suggests active monitoring, which is a positive sign.
Neither firm has been flagged in PFMatrix's active monitoring for mass payout denials or sudden rule changes as of June 2026.
FundingPips gives you a 10% max static drawdown on its 2-Step Standard, versus SLF's 8%. On a $50k account, that's an extra $1,000 of buffer. However, SLF's 2-Step does not require minimum trading days, so faster traders may prefer the speed advantage over the extra drawdown room.
Yes. SLF allows news trading on all challenge types and all funded accounts with no profit exclusion windows. The only restriction is a 2-minute minimum trade duration to avoid tick scalping. FundingPips imposes a 5-minute exclusion window for trades opened within 5 hours of a high-impact news event on standard funded accounts.
FundingPips' 2-Step Standard for $100k is priced at $399, which is refunded after your 4th successful payout. SLF's exact $100k 2-Step pricing could not be independently confirmed from a static page as of this writing. Check each firm's official checkout page for current pricing before purchasing, as fees change frequently.
SLF allows EAs only in its dedicated EA Challenge program. On all other SLF challenge types and funded accounts, EAs and automated tools are prohibited. FundingPips permits EAs that function as trade or risk managers on all account types; other EA types are blocked.
FundingPips' four-level Hot Seat plan is more structured, with explicit drawdown increases at each level and a clear path to 100% profit split and $2 million in capital. SLF's plan increases your balance 25% per cycle after a 10% cumulative gain over four months. FundingPips rewards consistency more predictably over time.
For news traders and anyone wanting clean, unrestricted rules on a funded account, Sure Leverage Funding is the straightforward choice. Its news trading permissions, static drawdown on the Instant Standard, and 24-hour payout guarantee are genuinely differentiated from most firms at this price point.
For traders who want the most documented payout history, more drawdown buffer on the 2-Step, a structured four-level scaling plan, and cTrader access, FundingPips is the better fit. The fee refund after four payouts on the 2-Step Standard also means the effective long-term cost approaches zero.
Both firms serve forex-focused traders well. The choice comes down to one question: do you trade news events, or do you need EA flexibility and a deeper scaling structure? Answer that, and the decision makes itself. See PFMatrix's FundingPips challenges and Sure Leverage Funding challenges pages for the latest verified pricing and rules before purchasing.
Sources checked: Sure Leverage Funding help center (help.sureleveragefunding.com), FundingPips trading objectives page (fundingpips.com/trading-objectives), FundingPips news and weekend holding rules help article (help.fundingpips.com), FundingPips Trustpilot profile, Sure Leverage Funding Trustpilot profile, FundingPips official case studies and payout data, multiple third-party review sources for corroboration.
Last verified: June 4, 2026
What we couldn't verify: Exact current pricing for Sure Leverage Funding's $100k 2-Step challenge could not be confirmed from a static pricing page (JS-rendered checkout). SLF review count and Trustpilot rating vary across sources (range of 4.2-4.5/5 with 310-800+ reviews cited depending on source and date); figures used reflect the most conservative recent data available. Always verify current pricing on each firm's official site before purchasing.
Written by: Jordan Hayes, Research Analyst Reviewed by: Lars Haugen, Senior Editor
PF Matrix independently verifies challenge rules, pricing, and firm data by checking official firm websites, help centers, and terms of service. We note when information could not be confirmed. Data such as pricing, rules, and discount codes can change without notice. Always verify current details on the firm's official site before purchasing.
Share this article
Jordan Hayes
Research Analyst
Jordan Hayes is a Research Analyst at PF Matrix with three years in trading analytics. He specializes in data-driven comparisons, fee breakdowns, and challenge metrics.
View all articles by Jordan Hayes
