Funded Futures Family review
Funded Futures Family states California as its state of incorporation and publishes its evaluation rules as numbers rather than adjectives: a $50,000 account at $125 a month, a $4,000 profit target, a $2,250 intraday trailing drawdown and a three-day minimum. The arithmetic those numbers produce is the review.
| Verdict | caution |
|---|---|
| Regulators | not verified |
| Minimum deposit | $25 |
Funded Futures Family publishes the things that decide whether an evaluation is passable: account size, monthly cost, profit target, drawdown, drawdown type, and minimum trading days. Most competitors publish two of those and describe the rest with adjectives.
Since the numbers are there, the useful thing to do is the arithmetic.
The rules, as published
For the $50,000 account: $125 per month, with a $25 entry point on the plan page, a profit target of $4,000, a drawdown of $2,250 on intraday trailing, and a three-day minimum of trading activity.
The firm states California as its state of incorporation, and links a privacy policy and terms and conditions from the footer. That is a low bar, and it is one that Super Funded, reviewed the same day, does not clear at all.
What the arithmetic says
The drawdown is 56% of the profit target. To pass, you need $4,000 up while never going $2,250 down from your peak.
The words “intraday trailing” carry most of the weight. A trailing drawdown moves up as the account’s high-water mark moves up, so it does not stay $2,250 below your starting balance; it stays $2,250 below the best point you reached. Take a position $1,500 in profit, give it back, and you have spent two thirds of your allowance without a losing day on the statement.
That is not a hidden term. It is stated plainly, and it is the standard used across futures prop firms; the variations between them are set out in futures prop trading firms. It is simply the term that fails most people, and it fails them on unrealised profit rather than on losses.
The monthly fee changes what you are buying
At $125 a month the decision is not a one-off purchase. The trader most likely to keep paying is the one who keeps not passing, and every additional month makes the target need to arrive sooner to be worth it.
Three months at $125 is $375 against a $4,000 target. Six is $750. The comparison worth making before subscribing is against a one-time-fee competitor at the same account size, with an honest guess at how many months you will actually take.
We made the same point about Take Profit Trader, where the subscription model produces the same open-ended arithmetic.
What we could not establish
The firm names its state of incorporation but we did not find a company registration number or a registered address on the pages we read. No pass rate is published, so how many buyers reach a payout is unknown.
Registers we hold in full
| Register | Result |
|---|---|
| ASIC (Australia), 6,525 licensees | not found |
| CySEC (Cyprus), 248 investment firms | not found |
| FCA register, incl. unauthorised firms | no entry, checked 12 August 2026 |
Expected. A prop firm selling simulated evaluations generally holds none of these, and their absence is not a finding.
What we checked, and what we didn’t
We read the published plans, rules and legal pages. We have not bought an evaluation, traded one, or requested a payout.
Two questions the published numbers do not answer. Is the trailing drawdown calculated on closed balance or on unrealised equity, and where is that stated? And on the $50,000 plan, what share of buyers reached the $4,000 target?