Verdict. Funded7 does something almost no FX and CFD prop firm does: it prints the odds of reaching a funded account on its own product page, at roughly 6% from Phase 1 entry. That is real disclosure and it deserves credit. But it names no measurement period, no denominator and no source — precisely the standard the US futures firms publishing the same statistic do meet — and it sits inside the sales module for Funded7’s instalment product, which is where the candour starts to look like positioning. Suited to traders who want static drawdown and weekly payouts on a Cyprus-registered operator. Not suited to anyone who needs a regulated counterparty or a stated methodology behind a headline statistic.

Key terms, from Funded7’s own published pages

• Two Phase structure: Phase 1 target 8%, Phase 2 target 6%, minimum 3 trading days, minimum 10 closed trades, no time limit — Funded7 challenge comparison.
• Account sizes: $15,000–$500,000 (Two Phase), $15,000–$200,000 (One Phase), $5,000–$75,000 (Instant Funding).
• Maximum daily loss: 5% on Two Phase, PAYG, NEO and Instant Funding; 4% on One Phase.
• Maximum total loss: 10% static on Two Phase, PAYG and NEO; 8% trailing on One Phase and Instant Funding.
• Profit split: 80/20 on Two Phase, PAYG and NEO; 50/50 on One Phase and Instant Funding. The advertised “up to a 90% profit share” requires a paid 10% add-on.
• Payouts: every 7 days, processed within one business day, minimum $100 after the split — $125 gross at 80/20, $200 gross at 50/50 (Funded7 FAQ).
• Published odds of reaching funded: ~6% at Phase 1 entry, ~24% after Phase 1, ~60% after Phase 2 — Funded7 Pay as You Grow page.
• Refunds: 7 days from purchase, only if no trading has occurred; the fee is otherwise reimbursed only inside a second funded payout, minimum 14 days apart, on Two Phase.

The number itself, and what surrounds it

On the Pay as You Grow page and again on the home page, Funded7 publishes a block headed “Probability of reaching funded” showing “At Phase 1 entry ~6%”, “After passing Phase 1 ~24%” and “After passing Phase 2 ~60%”. Directly beneath it, the firm writes, verbatim:

“A standard challenge asks you to commit the full fee at 6% odds. PAYG asks for a fraction at those same odds, and only increases your payment as your probability improves.”

A prop firm has just told a prospective customer that the product it sells has a 94% failure rate. In the FX and CFD segment, almost nobody writes that sentence.

The three figures are also internally coherent, which is worth checking rather than assuming. The implied Phase 1 pass rate is 6 ÷ 24 = 25%; the implied Phase 2 pass rate is 24 ÷ 60 = 40%. Multiply the chain — 25% × 40% × 60% — and you land back on 6%. These were built as a funnel, not sprinkled on a page.

The last stage is the strange one. On Funded7’s own description, clearing Phase 2 is followed by paying a $119 activation fee and receiving credentials: a payment, not a test. Yet the firm assigns it only ~60% odds, implying two in five Phase 2 passers never become funded, and does not explain why. Nor does it say whether these are Funded7’s own measured outcomes or a generic industry figure. There is no footnote, no sample size, no date and no methodology anywhere near the block. That distinction is the whole ballgame: publishing your own audited funnel is genuinely new, quoting an unattributed industry number is marketing. On the published evidence Funded7 has not shown which it is doing, and we could not verify the figure independently.

What the 6% is being used to sell

Follow the layout. The odds block appears inside the Pay as You Grow module and nowhere else. PAYG splits a $50,000 challenge fee into $149.70 at Phase 1, $329 after passing Phase 1 and $119 on activation — $597.70, identical to the standard fee. The panel to its left reads “Standard: fail P1 — $597.70. Full fee lost. No refund, no further attempts.” The one to its right reads “PAYG: fail P1 — $149.70. Only P1 fee lost. Capital saved: $448. ~3 more attempts possible.”

So the 6% figure is doing a specific job: it converts a competitor-style objection into a reason to buy Funded7’s instalment plan. The argument is not wrong. If the odds really are 6%, paying a quarter of the fee to take the first swing beats paying all of it, and a trader who fails gets roughly three more attempts on the same budget. But the honesty is deployed selectively — the same odds apply to the Two Phase product the site labels “Popular”, and the block does not appear on that page. The candour is real; it is also load-bearing for a sale. A reader deciding where to put $600 should hold both.

How this compares with what other firms publish

Funded7’s disclosure is less unusual than it first looks — and that comparison is not flattering.

A cluster of US futures firms publishes pass-rate statistics as standing disclosures, several in an almost identical four-part format. Topstep states that “From January through December 2025, (a) 16.8% of all Trading Combines initiated were successfully completed and afforded the opportunity to advance to the Funded Level… (c) 33.3% of all individual participants at the Funded Level received a payout”. Earn2Trade publishes “In 2025, 8.89% of candidates passed” its examinations and then supplies the denominator: “Percentage is based on subscriptions passed against new subscriptions.” Tradeify goes furthest, conceding that participants “may purchase multiple evaluations and resets, and initiated a median of 3 each over the period” — the single line that reconciles a per-attempt rate with a per-person one.

Disclosure quality	Funded7	Topstep	Earn2Trade	Tradeify
Headline rate published	~6% reach funded from Phase 1 entry	16.8% of Combines completed	8.89% of candidates passed	17.2% of evaluations completed
Measurement period stated	None	Jan–Dec 2025	Calendar 2025	Aug 2025 – Jul 2026
Denominator stated	None	Combines initiated	Subscriptions passed ÷ new subscriptions	Evaluation accounts initiated
Share of funded traders paid	Not published	33.3%	18.04% of Live accounts	28.5%
Repeat attempts disclosed	No	No	No	Median of 3 per participant

All four checked 7 September 2026. So the practice is not novel — it is simply rare outside US futures. What Funded7 has not done is meet the standard those firms set: each of them names a period, a denominator and a definition of “passed”, and Funded7’s block names none of the three. Without a denominator, “~6%” cannot even be read: 6% of entrants, of attempts, or of accounts are three different claims, and Tradeify’s median of three attempts per person shows how far apart they can be.

Among the FX and CFD firms Funded7 actually competes with, nobody publishes a rate at all. FTMO — the largest firm in the sector — publishes detailed rules and payout totals but no pass rate anywhere; its statistics page now returns a 404. The5ers and Blue Guardian advertise headline outcomes, total payouts and active trader counts, without saying what share of entrants reach a funded account. On rule parameters Funded7 is unremarkable: its 8% and 6% phase targets, 5% daily loss and 10% static total loss sit alongside FTMO’s 10% and 5% targets, 5% daily and 10% static, and The5ers’ 10% target on a tighter 3% daily and 6% static.

Payouts: what is published, and what we could not verify

Funded7 publishes a payout cadence of every 7 days from the last withdrawal or account creation, processed within one business day by Revolut tag, ETH/USDC or bank transfer, KYC required before the first payout only. The minimum is $100 net of the split. Withdrawals close all open trades and put the account into read-only mode until processed. Standard accounts carry a $10,000 monthly payout cap; PAYG accounts carry $20,000.

What the firm does not publish is any audited payout total, any count of paid traders, or any independent verification of payout timeliness. There is no third-party attestation on the site; the home page carries a “real people. real payouts.” carousel, but a carousel is not evidence. Trustpilot’s public profile for funded7.com showed a 3.1 TrustScore across 49 reviews when we checked on 7 September 2026, heavily polarised between five-star and one-star ratings, several of the latter describing withdrawals refused on rules the reviewer said were unpublished. We could not corroborate individual reviewer accounts and do not treat them as findings; on a sample of 49 the aggregate is directionally interesting and statistically weak.

Funded7 states it has been operating since 2025, so there is no long payout history to test. That is not a criticism, but it is a fact a trader should price. For a firm whose pitch here is transparency about odds, publishing the funnel and withholding the outcome is a strange combination.

The rules that actually decide whether you keep the money

Three mechanics matter more than the profit target.

The daily loss limit ratchets down after a losing day. Funded7 calculates maximum daily loss as a percentage of the previous day’s end-of-day balance, not of the starting balance. Its own worked example: on a $50,000 account the 5% limit is $2,500 on day one; after the balance falls to $48,500 the limit becomes $2,425 and the breach floor moves to $46,075 (Funded7 FAQ). Lose money and your permitted loss shrinks with it. Most traders read “5% daily” as a fixed dollar figure. It is not.

Taking a payout can halve your drawdown buffer. On One Phase and Instant Funding accounts the maximum total loss trails a high-water mark, and withdrawals pull that mark back down. Funded7’s published example: a $50,000 account with a $5,000 total-loss allowance and a $60,000 high-water mark, after a $15,000 withdrawal, has a new high-water mark of $45,000 and a breach floor of $40,000 (Funded7 FAQ). The buffer between balance and breach falls from $10,000 to $5,000. This is the same structure TIS documented in its Instant Funding review and again in the Atmos Funded review: withdrawing is not free, it costs room. Two Phase accounts, with their static 10%, do not have this problem.

Passing Phase 2 does not guarantee a standard funded account. Under the firm’s Optimal Risk Enforcement Framework, clearing the Phase 2 target locks the account for manual review, after which a trader may be placed on a “Silver” tier (1:30 leverage, 2% risk cap, mandatory stop-loss) or “Bronze” (1:20, 1% cap, mandatory stop-loss) rather than the standard 1:50 and 3%. Graduating out requires three successful payouts. Funded7 calls these a “Conditional Pass”, not a fail, and frames the framework bluntly on its own page: “Why are payouts denied for vague reasons just because a trader made too much profit? We are ending these toxic industry practices.” (Funded7, OREF framework).

To the firm’s credit, its consistency rule is published as an actual formula rather than a vague standard: the allowable trade size is the lower of median notional value × 2.5, or Q3 + (1.5 × IQR), applied at payout as a deferral rather than a breach (Rule 1). Compare the discretionary consistency clauses TIS found at FundedFirm and SFX Funded. Funded7 also states that profits from compliant trades are not confiscated when a violating trade is voided — but losses from voided trades are retained, and if nullification drops equity below the drawdown threshold that counts as a breach. Three rejected payout requests (“strikes”) terminate the agreement.

Who you are actually contracting with

The corporate stack is where the transparency thins. Funded7’s terms name the counterparty as “ICHIBAN TECH LTD, a company duly registered in the Republic of Cyprus with registration number HE 470329 and SUCCESSIO LTD, a company duly registered in the Republic of Seychelles with registration number 245758”. We verified the first: a search of the Cyprus Department of Registrar of Companies public register on 7 September 2026 returned exactly one match for HE 470329 — ICHIBAN TECH LTD, type “company”, status “registered”.

The second does not reconcile. The footer of the very same terms page places SUCCESSIO LTD, registration number 245758, in Saint Lucia, while the contracting clause above it says Seychelles. A third entity, FUNDED7 LTD, registration number 2025-00900, Saint Lucia, appears in the footer ownership line but is not named as a party to the trader’s contract at all. Saint Lucia’s register cannot be searched independently from outside, so the firm’s own terms page is the only citable source for those two — and it contradicts itself. TIS flagged the same Saint Lucia opacity at Clarity Traders.

Funded7 is not a regulated financial firm and says so in capitals: “FUNDED7 IS NOT LICENSED TO OFFER INVESTMENT SERVICES AND DOES NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.” Provision 11 states that “all trading conducted through the Services is entirely simulated and not real” and that funds provided are “fictitious”. That sits awkwardly beside the PAYG page’s promise that after activation you “receive your live account credentials, and start trading real capital”. The contract governs; the marketing copy does not.

The restricted-country list is the last oddity. Along with the United States and the expected sanctions jurisdictions it includes Cyprus — the country where the operating company is registered and whose law, under Provision 18, governs the contract. A Cypriot company, on Cypriot law, that will not accept Cypriot customers. Lawful and common, but it tells a trader exactly where the consumer-protection perimeter sits: outside it.

FAQ

Does Funded7 really publish its pass rate? It publishes odds of reaching a funded account — ~6% at Phase 1 entry, ~24% after Phase 1, ~60% after Phase 2 — on its Pay as You Grow and home pages. It does not state whether those figures describe Funded7’s own traders or the industry generally, and gives no source, sample size or date. Treat it as a disclosed estimate, not an audited statistic.

Is the drawdown static or trailing? Both, depending on product. Two Phase, PAYG and NEO use a static 10% maximum total loss from the initial balance. One Phase and Instant Funding use an 8% limit that trails a high-water mark and is recalculated downward when you withdraw.

What is the real profit split? 80% on Two Phase, PAYG and NEO; 50% on One Phase and Instant Funding. The “up to 90%” figure on the home page requires a paid 10% profit-share add-on. The base contract is 80/20.

Is Funded7 regulated, and can US traders use it? No to both. The terms state it is not licensed to offer investment services, does not accept client funds and does not act as a broker; trading is simulated. There is no regulator to take a payout dispute to. The United States is on the restricted list, as is Cyprus itself, and residents of listed regions “will not be eligible for Payouts under any circumstances”.

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.