Side by side · verified from each firm's own pages

FTMO vs The Trading Pit

Rules placed next to each other, with the calculation basis written out — because two firms quoting the same percentage can be measuring completely different things.

What differs most.

FTMO has no consistency rule on this plan; The Trading Pit does.

	FTMO Czech Republic	The Trading Pit Liechtenstein
Disclosure score	Partially documented	Partially documented
Challenge from	€79 list, EUR	Not yet verified
Plan compared	FTMO Challenge: 2-Step	CFD Prime (1-phase / 2-phase)
Model	2-Step	2-Step
Profit target	10% → 5%	Not yet verified
Daily loss limit	5% of the balance recorded at day start, on equity, including floating P/L. Resets 00:00 CE(S)T	Not yet verified
Maximum loss limit	10% Static floor, from initial balance	Not yet verified
Consistency	No consistency rule	50% — best day as a share of the sum of positive days (Payout eligibility)
Stop loss	Not yet verified	Not required
Best profit split	90% Standard	80% Earning phase
Weekend holding	Not yet verified	Not yet verified
News trading	Not yet verified	Restricted window
Inactivity breach	Not yet verified	21 days
Retroactive rule changes	0	0
Operator jurisdiction	Czech Republic	Liechtenstein
Regulator disclosed	Not yet verified	Not yet verified
Restricted countries	Not listed. The FTMO Challenge T&C (4 August 2026) define 'Restricted Jurisdictions' only as countries determined by FTMO 'at our discretion'; no list appears in the document or on the pages read.	United States, Canada, Russia 'including' — the footer points to the FAQ for the full list, which has not been read.

Only the first recorded plan of each firm is shown here. Full plan detail, sources and everything we could not verify are on each firm's page. Last re-checked 7 September 2026; the oldest record on this page was checked 4 September 2026. Each firm page carries its own date.

Not yet verified is not No. Where a cell reads "Not yet verified", we could not confirm the rule from the firm's own terms or help centre. It is not a claim that the rule does not exist.