Key terms at a glance

• Account sizes: $2,500 to $100,000, across instant-funding and evaluation routes — per published plan terms, 2026
• Entry cost: from $99 on the $10,000 account
• Profit targets: 8% Phase 1 and 5% Phase 2 on the two-step route; a one-step option consolidates to a single target
• Daily drawdown: published variously as 3%, or 4% of the previous day’s highest balance or equity — sources conflict
• Maximum drawdown: published variously as 6% of initial balance, or 8% — sources conflict
• Profit split: advertised from a base rising to 85%, with some plans and paid add-ons marketed at 95%-100%
• Payout frequency: every 14 days, processing in 48 hours
• Operating since: 2023; not a regulated financial firm

The Trustpilot warning, and why it matters more than the terms

Start with the finding that changes how everything else on this page should be read. Trustpilot has placed an active “breach of guidelines” warning on AquaFunded and hidden the firm’s rating after detecting fake reviews, as independent review trackers have noted.

That is a materially different situation from a low rating, and it is different again from the softer flag seen elsewhere in this sector, where a platform removes a handful of individual reviews while leaving the score visible. Hiding the score is the more serious intervention: it means Trustpilot judged the review population itself unreliable rather than merely containing some bad entries.

The practical consequence is what this review has to dwell on. Prop firms publish their own rules, so terms are easy to verify. What cannot be verified from a firm’s own materials is whether it actually pays. Traders resolve that question almost entirely through aggregated third-party reviews, and for AquaFunded that channel has been switched off. The firm has been operating since 2023 without visible signs of collapse, which is a genuine data point in its favour, but longevity is not the same as payout evidence.

Nothing in the warning establishes that the firm itself placed the fake reviews. Review manipulation in this sector is frequently done by affiliates chasing commission rather than by the firm, and Trustpilot’s warnings do not distinguish. We could not establish who was responsible, and it would be wrong to assert it.

The payout picture, and what could not be verified

What is published: payouts run on a 14-day cycle with a stated 48-hour processing window once approved. That cadence sits mid-table — slower than firms offering daily withdrawals, faster than those on monthly cycles.

What is inconsistent: the profit split. Independent summaries describe a base split rising to 85%, while other published material markets 95% to 100% depending on plan and paid add-ons. Those are not reconcilable as a single figure, and the gap matters because add-on-dependent splits mean the advertised number is not the default number. Any trader comparing headline splits across firms should establish which tier the quoted percentage refers to and what it costs to reach.

What is not published: AquaFunded does not disclose audited payout totals, a pass rate, or the proportion of funded accounts that reach a first withdrawal. That is standard across the sector rather than unusual — Earn2Trade publishing its own 8.89% pass rate remains the exception. But the combination of undisclosed payout data and a suppressed review score leaves this firm with less independent verification available than any other covered in this series.

We found no on-the-record statement from AquaFunded management addressing the Trustpilot warning, payout mechanics, or the split discrepancy. No quote is used here because none could be verified.

The rules that actually fail traders

The drawdown figures do not agree across sources, and the difference is decisive. One set of published terms describes a 3% daily and 6% maximum drawdown. Another describes a daily limit of 4% calculated on the previous day’s highest balance or equity, whichever is higher, with a maximum of 8% of initial balance. Those are different products. A daily limit measured against the previous day’s high rather than its closing balance is materially tighter, because an intraday spike raises the floor for the following session. Traders must confirm which construction applies to the specific plan before paying, and should treat any third-party summary, including this one, as secondary to the firm’s own current terms.

The two-step target sequence front-loads the difficulty. An 8% Phase 1 target followed by 5% in Phase 2 means most of the work happens before any funded status is reached. The one-step alternative removes the second phase but concentrates the requirement, which suits consistent traders and punishes those who need multiple attempts.

Add-ons change the economics at checkout. Where a higher split is available as a paid upgrade, the effective cost of the challenge is not the headline fee. A $99 entry that requires paid add-ons to reach the advertised split is a different proposition from a $99 entry at the default terms.

How the terms compare

Term	AquaFunded	Maven Trading	My Funded Futures (Rapid)
Entry cost	From $99 on $10,000	Refunded on third withdrawal	$0 activation
Profit split	Base to 85%; 95%-100% with add-ons	From 80%, scaling higher	90/10 from first dollar
Daily drawdown	3% or 4% of prior day’s high (sources conflict)	2%-5%	None
Max drawdown	6% or 8% (sources conflict)	3%-8%	4% intraday trailing
Payout cadence	Every 14 days, 48h processing	Every 10 business days	Daily, 24h after first trade
Independent rating	Hidden by Trustpilot	4.6/5, some reviews removed	4.9/5, ~17,500 reviews

The bottom row is the one that should drive the decision. On written terms alone AquaFunded competes reasonably: the entry cost is low and the headline split is high. On verifiability it is the weakest of the three, and in a sector where the central risk is whether a firm honours withdrawals, verifiability is not a secondary attribute. Maven Trading refunds the challenge fee and My Funded Futures pays daily against a large visible review base.

Regulatory posture

AquaFunded is not a regulated financial firm. It holds no authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Futures Association or any comparable supervisor. That is the sector norm rather than a distinguishing failing: prop firms argue that because evaluation and funded accounts are simulated, no client money is held and the activity falls outside the regulatory perimeter.

Public disclosure of the contracting entity, its registered jurisdiction and its corporate ownership is thin. Traders should read the entity name on their own agreement before paying, because that entity — not the brand — determines which courts would hear any dispute and what recourse exists if withdrawals stop. Opaque corporate structure is a recurring feature of this sector, and it has been noted in reviews of firms with very short registered histories.

Accounts are simulated throughout. Funded capital is the firm’s capital, not the trader’s, and the relationship is contractual rather than custodial. In the absence of regulation, the only protections a trader has are the terms of that contract and the firm’s commercial incentive to maintain a reputation — which is precisely the mechanism the Trustpilot warning calls into question.

Frequently asked questions

Why is AquaFunded’s Trustpilot rating hidden?

Trustpilot has applied an active breach-of-guidelines warning to AquaFunded and hidden its rating after detecting fake reviews. Hiding a score is more serious than removing individual reviews, as it indicates the review population as a whole was judged unreliable. The warning does not establish who placed the fake reviews.

What is AquaFunded’s profit split?

Published figures conflict. Some independent summaries describe a base split rising to 85%; other material markets 95% to 100% depending on plan and paid add-ons selected at checkout. Because higher splits appear to be add-on dependent, the advertised percentage is not necessarily the default, and the effective cost of entry rises accordingly.

What drawdown rules does AquaFunded use?

Sources disagree. One set of terms describes 3% daily and 6% maximum drawdown; another describes 4% daily calculated on the previous day’s highest balance or equity, with 8% maximum on initial balance. A limit measured against the prior day’s high is materially tighter. Confirm which applies to your specific plan before paying.

How often does AquaFunded pay out?

Every 14 days, with a stated 48-hour processing window once a payout is approved. That places it mid-table for cadence — slower than firms offering daily or 48-hour cycles, faster than monthly payers. The firm does not publish audited payout totals or the share of funded accounts reaching a first withdrawal.

Is AquaFunded regulated?

No. AquaFunded holds no FCA, CFTC or NFA authorisation. Evaluation and funded accounts are simulated, which is the basis on which prop firms operate outside the regulatory perimeter. Traders hold a contractual claim against the operating entity rather than a regulated account with statutory protection.

How long has AquaFunded been operating?

Since 2023, without visible signs of collapse or mass payout failure. Longevity is a genuine data point in a sector with high firm turnover, but it is not evidence of payout reliability on its own, particularly where the main independent verification channel has been suppressed.

This review is independent editorial analysis and is not financial, investment, or trading advice, and is not an endorsement or solicitation. The Industry Spread has no affiliate or referral relationship with the firms covered. Proprietary trading challenges carry a fee that is generally non-refundable, most participants do not reach a funded account, and funded capital is the firm’s capital, not the trader’s. Terms change frequently — always verify current rules directly with the firm before paying any fee.