Fidelcrest vs Funded Trading Plus

Overview of Fidelcrest

Fidelcrest, established in September 2018, has emerged as a significant player among proprietary firms. With an impressive Trustpilot rating of 4.6/5, they boast an inclusive approach to trading evaluations, granting traders endless free reattempt opportunities. Their technology, Fidelcrest Markets, is a standout feature offering zero fees with actual market spreads, aimed at delivering an advanced trading experience. Additionally, the firm caters to an international audience with multilingual support and accommodates multiple trading styles by allowing trades to be held overnight and during news events. The leverage offered is a robust 1:200, and for ambitious traders, they offer potentials for capital increase up to a staggering $2,000,000.

Examination of Funded Trading Plus

Funded Trading Plus, a younger yet ambitious entity established in November 2021, has quickly garnered attention with an exceptional 4.9/5 Trustpilot score. They offer four different funding programs, opening the doors to capital heights of $2,500,000 and astonishing profit splits of up to 90%. They are also recognized for their supportive environment and offer a scaling option for successful traders. Diverse in their instrument offerings, they cover forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies without imposing trading day restrictions. Additionally, traders have the flexibility to hold positions overnight and place trades during news releases.

Comparative Highlights

When assessing the advantages of Fidelcrest, their commendable 1:200 leverage and the high ceiling for trading capital are particularly enticing for high-volume traders. Furthermore, their policy to allow free evaluation reattempts provides a safety net for improving traders. In contrast, Funded Trading Plus stands out with higher capital offerings and its superior profit sharing. The access to a variety of trading tools also adds to their appeal.

Challenges Presented by Each Firm

Despite its strengths, Fidelcrest sets the bar high with profit goals ranging from 15% to 20% for Aggressive accounts, which may be daunting for newcomers or conservative traders. On the flip side, Funded Trading Plus has limitations concerning leverage, capped at 1:30, which might not appeal to those seeking higher risk-reward scenarios. Additionally, the higher commission costs on forex pairs and the trailing drawdown rule could be viewed as deterrents for cost-conscious traders.

Operational Rules and Restrictions

Both firms enforce stringent operational rules: Fidelcrest applies rules including Maximum Daily Loss, Maximum Loss, and Maximum Trading Days, and prohibits strategies like Martingale. Conversely, Funded Trading Plus maintains a Maximum Daily Loss and Trailing Drawdown rule but notably does not allow weekend holding, which could influence trading strategies.

Deposit and Withdrawal Methods

Transaction-wise, both firms provide options like bank wire transfer and crypto transactions for deposits and withdrawals, with Fidelcrest adding credit/debit cards to its deposit methods and Deel for withdrawals. Such flexibility in banking options is critical for global traders who require accessibility and convenience.

Trading Options and Account Management

Portfolio diversification is addressed by both firms, offering a variety of tradeable instruments including commodities, crypto, and forex. Stocks and metals feature exclusively on Fidelcrest and Funded Trading Plus, respectively. Account sizes and currency options are catered to different traders' needs, with each firm maintaining accounts denominated in USD to simplify the financial management for a widespread audience.

Conclusion

In the complex ecosystem of proprietary trading, Fidelcrest and Funded Trading Plus stand out as competitive options for retail traders. Fidelcrest appeals to those valuing diverse market access and free reattempts during evaluations, with an established presence in the trading community. Meanwhile, Funded Trading Plus may attract those aiming for high capital grants and profit splits, despite being newer to the scene. Ultimately, the choice between the two firms will depend on individual trading styles, risk appetites, and the specific operational flexibility that traders prioritize.