Audacity Capital vs Funding Pips

Audacity Capital Overview

Founded in 2014, Audacity Capital has become a recognized name in providing direct funding to traders. With a notable Trustpilot rating of 4.7/5, it demonstrates a high level of trader satisfaction and excellent customer service. What stands out for Audacity Capital is its direct funding offer, which can go as high as $500,000 without the need for a prior evaluation phase. This is exceptionally appealing for experienced traders who wish to bypass the often lengthy and stressful evaluation period that is common with other prop firms. The firm encourages traders to grow their account with an unrestricted timeframe for scaling and a stable 10% fixed drawdown. This indicates an understanding of the unpredictable nature of trading and the need for flexibility. Furthermore, traders are rewarded for good performance with the opportunity to double their account at every 10% profit milestone. Additionally, the firm accommodates overnight positions from Monday to Friday, a must-have for swing traders. However, there are areas where Audacity Capital might not appeal to all. The absence of a free trial could dissuade traders who prefer to 'try before they buy.' The prohibition of weekend trading may turn away those who employ strategies that capitalize on market gaps. A 50% profit share is on the lower side when compared to the industry standard, and monthly platform charges could be a dampener for those watching their bottom line.

Funding Pips Insights

Funding Pips is a newer entrant, established in August 2022, but is making waves with its competitive offerings. Its low evaluation fees paired with a 4.7/5 Trustpilot rating signifies its rapid acceptance within the trading community. Offering capital allocation of up to $2,000,000 with significant leverage of 1:100, Funding Pips empowers traders to take larger positions and amplify their trading strategies. The firm is quite liberal in terms of trading conditions – there’s an unlimited trading period, with no minimum required days before withdrawing profits, which suggests a focus on long-term relationships with their traders. The scaling plan seems to be trader-friendly, and with profit shares scaling between 80% to 90% and payouts on a weekly basis, traders are incentivized substantially for their efforts. Furthermore, Funding Pips allows trading during news, overnight, and even over weekends, thereby pushing the limits on when and how you trade - a significant flexibility bonus. On the flip side, the lack of immediate hands-on support through live chat may turn some traders away, who prefer real-time assistance. A mandatory stop-loss on funded accounts may also constrain traders who use strategies without rigid stop-loss orders.

Trading Conditions and Rules

The trading rules set by both firms show a certain degree of risk management and trader commitment. Audacity Capital’s rules include a consistency rule, lot size limit, and no trading during news or on weekends – all catered towards a guarded and consistent trading approach. Funding Pips, while liberal with trading hours and evaluations, implements its own safeguards such as no hedging and no Martingale strategies, which they consider high-risk.

Financial Operations

Both firms offer modern deposit methods including crypto and credit/debit cards, albeit Audacity Capital also accepts bank wire transfers. When it comes to withdrawals, Audacity Capital allows for bank transfers and crypto, while Funding Pips uses the Deel platform – indicating a more tech-forward approach.

Account Offerings

Audacity Capital begins with a $15,000 USD account, which is suitable for traders who wish to start at a more moderate level. Funding Pips, on the other hand, does not specify starting account sizes. However, Funding Pips extends its offerings to metals, in addition to commodities, forex, and indices, whereas Audacity Capital does not include metals and crypto in their tradable instruments.

Conclusion

Both Audacity Capital and Funding Pips present compelling features for retail traders, each with its own set of pros and cons. The choice between the two will largely depend on a trader’s preference for immediate funding versus low-cost evaluations, the importance of profit sharing, platform fees, trading during news/events, and operational support. Ultimately, traders should weigh these factors against their personal trading style, risk appetite, and strategic preferences to determine which firm better aligns with their trading journey. Given the distinctions in their offerings, the firms cater to different segments within the trading community, acting as a reminder that in the diverse world of trading, one size does not fit all.