Funded Trading Plus vs Ment Funding

Comparing Funded Trading Plus and Ment Funding

Retail traders seeking a prop firm often look for reliable funding, trading freedom, and a substantial profit split. Our comparative analysis between Funded Trading Plus and Ment Funding will delve into the pros, cons, and distinctive rules of each to help you make a well-informed decision.

Funded Trading Plus: An Overview

Funded Trading Plus establishes itself as a significant player by offering four funding programs with a staggering potential for up to $2,500,000 in capital. This allows traders to scale their operations flexibly. Together with a stellar 4.9/5 Trustpilot rating, they hand over an attractive 90% profit split, which is undoubtedly at the higher end of the spectrum. The firm's excellent support system and the availability of scaling options suggest a trader-centric approach. Their platform boasts a comprehensive range of trading tools encompassing forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Traders will especially appreciate the lack of trading day restrictions, giving them the liberty to hold positions overnight and trade during news events, which is a rarity in the industry.

Ment Funding: An Overview

Ment Funding competes closely, offering live funded accounts with funding up to $2,000,000. It holds a strong 4.6/5 Trustpilot rating, reflecting its reliability in the traders' community. They offer a one-step evaluation process and support a wide range of trading instruments, including stocks, which Funded Trading Plus doesn't offer. Moreover, Ment Funding stands out for supporting various trading aids like EAs, copy traders, scripts, and indicators, which is inclusive for algorithmic traders and those who use automated systems.

Critical Analysis of Funding Programs

Funded Trading Plus seems to edge out Ment Funding in terms of maximum capital offering and profit splits. However, Ment Funding's inclusive approach towards trading styles and the one-step evaluation could be a deciding factor for many traders who prefer simplicity and fewer hurdles to getting funded.

The Rulebook Comparison

Both firms implement safeguards such as maximum daily loss and profit targets to manage risk. However, Funded Trading Plus imposes restrictions on third-party copy trading and third-party EA risks, which can limit traders who rely on these methods. In contrast, Ment Funding appears more lenient towards automated trading strategies but imposes a 5% maximum trailing drawdown and prohibits weekend positions, which might be a setback for some.

Financial Transactions: Deposits and Withdrawals

When it comes to fiscal transactions, diversity and ease are what traders generally look for. Funded Trading Plus offers deposit methods via credit/debit cards and crypto, which can be convenient for a global audience. On the flip side, withdrawals can be made through crypto and a service called Deel, possibly offering a rapid and flexible process. Ment Funding maintains more traditional methods, allowing deposits and withdrawals through credit/debit cards and bank wire transfers, respectively, which could be more reassuring for conservative traders.

Trading Instruments and Account Offerings

Both prop firms offer a range of traded instruments, including commodities, crypto, forex, indices, and metals. However, Ment Funding gets an extra point for incorporating stocks into their tradable instruments, broadening the spectrum for equity-interested traders.

Overall Perspective

Incorporated a year apart, both Funded Trading Plus and Ment Funding have claimed their space in the prop trading world. Yet, their offerings cater to slightly different trader profiles. Funded Trading Plus, with its higher capital offering and profit split, seems geared towards aggressive growth traders, while Ment Funding's streamlined processes and support for diverse strategies might appeal to traders seeking flexibility and simplicity. When choosing between the two, traders must weigh these differences against their individual trading style, risk appetite, financial strategies, and the importance of profit sharing in their overall trading objectives. Both prop firms present unique opportunities, but the final choice would ultimately depend on which set of advantages aligns best with a trader’s personal goals and preferences.