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

FundedNext vs Lux Trading Firm

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.
  • FundedNext has no consistency rule on this plan; Lux Trading Firm does.
A $100,000 account, day one — one shared scale $100,000 start FundedNext — Stellar 2-Step $90,000 $95,000 $108,000 Lux Trading Firm — 1-Step Evaluation $100K $94,000 $110,000
  • Account closed
  • Trading day over, account survives
  • Room to lose on day one
  • Profit still needed to pass phase one
Drawn to scale from each plan's own published numbers, on the plan compared in the table below. Day one is the only day on which every daily-loss basis agrees, which is what makes the two bars honestly comparable at all. On day one the account closes first at Lux Trading Firm — its floor sits $4,000 above the floor at FundedNext. We could not confirm a daily loss limit for the Lux Trading Firm plan from the firm's own pages, so that mark is absent. That is not a claim the rule does not exist.
FundedNext logo
FundedNext
United Arab Emirates
Lux Trading Firm logo
Lux Trading Firm
United Kingdom
Disclosure score
69 Partially documented
66 Partially documented
Challenge from$59.99
list, USD
£199
list, GBP
Plan comparedStellar 2-Step1-Step Evaluation $100K
Model2-Step1-Step
Profit target8% → 5%10% → 10%
Daily loss limit5% of initial balance, on equity, including floating P/L. Resets 00:00 server timeNot yet verified
Maximum loss limit10% Static floor, from initial balance6% Static floor, from initial balance
ConsistencyNo consistency rule5% — one trade idea as a share of the profit target (Evaluation and payout)
Stop lossNot yet verifiedMandatory
Best profit split95% 95% Add-On80% Funded
Weekend holdingNot yet verifiedNot yet verified
News tradingNot yet verifiedRestricted window
Inactivity breach60 daysNot yet verified
Retroactive rule changes00
Operator jurisdictionUnited Arab Emirates (Ajman Free Zone)England and Wales
Regulator disclosedNot yet verifiedNot yet verified
Restricted countriesTerms of Service 5.3 (5 May 2026, Tier A) — 'Restricted Countries – CFDs', 20 named: Bangladesh, Myanmar, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Grenada, Chad, Malaysia, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Cape Verde, Tuvalu, Vietnam, Bouvet Island, Burundi, Cook Islands, Eritrea, Comoros, Sri Lanka, Fiji. The trading-objectives page (Tier B) lists only five (North Korea, Myanmar, Belarus, Iran, Russia) — a shorter, different list; both are recorded and the contract governs. Note Comoros itself is on the list while an affiliated entity is registered there.Not yet verified
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 5 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.

Other comparisons