Head-to-head comparison
Blue Guardian Futures vs Lucid Trading
Compare FirmFax scores, account rules, reputation, fees, platforms, and current offers before choosing.
Blue Guardian Futures vs Lucid Trading
Lucid Trading leads by 1 FirmFax point.
Best account
Reserve Futures Account 69/100 account scoreBest account
LucidFlex 69/100 account scoreFast answer
Lucid Trading is the clearer pick here: it scores 1 point higher on the FirmFax master score (67 vs 66) and starts $65 cheaper. Because both use end-of-day trailing drawdown, so the day-to-day risk model feels the same, the deciding factors come down to cost and track record.
Best for Blue Guardian Futures
Pick Blue Guardian Futures for Reserve Futures Account, its top-scored tracked account at 69/100.
Best for Lucid Trading
Pick Lucid Trading for LucidFlex, its top-scored tracked account at 69/100.
Next step
Blue Guardian Futures
Best account: Reserve Futures Account. 25% off all accounts when you use code FAX.
Next step
Lucid Trading
Best account: LucidFlex. Discount code VAULT at checkout.
The short version
What actually separates them
3 fields on the record split Blue Guardian Futures and Lucid Trading. Everything else either matches or is not on the record yet.
A consistency cap limits how much of your total profit one day may contribute, so a single outsized winner can delay a payout.
A daily loss limit ends the session, not the account — but it decides how many attempts a bad open costs you.
Entry cost for the cheapest account each firm sells, before any live discount.
Identical on both: drawdown model, trader profit split.
Not comparable yet: activation fee, minimum days to a first payout — at least one of the two firms has no figure on record, so we do not draw a conclusion from it. A blank here means we have not confirmed the rule, not that the firm has none.
Fig. 01 — Category winners
Who wins each category
Lucid Trading wins more categories (3–1, 1 tied, 1 not comparable), but the right pick depends on which category matters most to you.
Price
Lucid Trading is cheaper to enter ($89 vs $154).
Drawdown
TieBoth use a end-of-day trailing drawdown.
Payouts
No dataLucid Trading publishes a minimum number of days to a first payout; we have none recorded for Blue Guardian Futures, so there is no comparison to draw here yet. Trader split is level or equally unrecorded, so nothing separates them here.
Rules
Blue Guardian Futures has fairer rules overall (65 vs 56 on rule fairness).
Platforms
Lucid Trading supports more platforms (12 vs 4).
Overall value
Lucid Trading has the higher overall FirmFax score (67 vs 66).
A “tie” means both firms publish the same answer. “No data” means one of them has no figure on record for that category, so there is nothing to compare — it is never a point against either firm.
Buyer guide
Which one should you choose?
Blue Guardian Futures is stronger when...
- Pick Blue Guardian Futures for Reserve Futures Account, its top-scored tracked account at 69/100.
- Entry cost: $154 starting price, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: end-of-day trailing drawdown, daily loss limit None — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- Watch the 40% consistency rule before you scale into a big day.
- Payouts: 90/10 on funded futures accounts, Model-dependent; Standard pays every 3 days, Reserve advertises instant payouts, and on-demand, weekly or bi-weekly options depend on account type and add-ons.
Lucid Trading is stronger when...
- Pick Lucid Trading for LucidFlex, its top-scored tracked account at 69/100.
- Entry cost: $89 starting price, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: end-of-day trailing drawdown, daily loss limit Plan-specific — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- Watch the 50% consistency rule before you scale into a big day.
- Payouts: 90/10 on LucidPro, LucidFlex, and LucidDirect; LucidLive handled separately, Model-dependent; LucidFlex states request anytime with funds within two business days, first withdrawal from 2 days.
Before you buy
Lucid Trading is $65 cheaper to start ($89 starting price), but weigh activation fees and any live discount before deciding.
Both firms sit at 0 logged status issues, so status issues are level in this matchup.
Payout cadence differs — Blue Guardian Futures is Model-dependent; Standard pays every 3 days, Reserve advertises instant payouts, and on-demand, weekly or bi-weekly options depend on account type and add-ons, Lucid Trading is Model-dependent; LucidFlex states request anytime with funds within two business days — which compounds if you withdraw often.
Freshness: Blue Guardian Futures was last reviewed 2026-09-07; Lucid Trading on 2026-09-06.
Fig. 02 — Score breakdown
Where each firm is stronger
A dash means the factor is unscored for that firm — the evidence it needs (a founding year, a public review sample) is not on record, so its weight moves to the factors that do have evidence rather than counting as a zero.
Fig. 03 — Same size, side by side
Compared at a $50,000 account
| At $50,000 | Blue Guardian Futures | Lucid Trading |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Profit target | $3,000 | $3,000 |
A bigger max drawdown gives more room; a lower profit target is easier to clear. A dash means that figure is not on record at this size, so no checkmark is awarded either way. Review the exact figures for your selected account.
Fig. 04 — The tale of the tape
Head-to-head
| Metric | Blue Guardian Futures | Lucid Trading |
|---|---|---|
| FirmFax master score | 66 | 67✓ |
| Best account score | 69 (Reserve Futures Account) | 69 (LucidFlex) |
| Reputation | Positive reputation | Strong reputation✓ |
| Founded | 2024✓ | 2025 |
| Starting price | $154 | $89✓ |
| Activation fee | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Markets | Futures | Futures |
| Jurisdiction | UAE | USA |
| Platforms | Tradovate, TradingView, NinjaTrader, Deepcharts | NinjaTrader, Tradovate, TradingView, Tradesea, Sierra Chart, Quantower, Bookmap, ATAS, R Trader Pro, MotiveWave, Jigsaw, MultiCharts |
| Drawdown | Trailing (end-of-day) | Trailing (end-of-day) |
| Daily loss limit | None | Plan-specific |
| Consistency rule | 40% | 50% |
| Profit split | 90/10 on funded futures accounts | 90/10 on LucidPro, LucidFlex, and LucidDirect; LucidLive handled separately |
| Payout frequency | Model-dependent; Standard pays every 3 days, Reserve advertises instant payouts, and on-demand, weekly or bi-weekly options depend on account type and add-ons | Model-dependent; LucidFlex states request anytime with funds within two business days |
| Min days to payout | Not recorded | 2 |
Checkmarks flag the objectively better value (higher score/reputation, older firm, lower price/fee) and are only awarded when both firms have that figure on record — “Not recorded” never loses a row. Rules are shown side by side without a “winner” because the best choice depends on your strategy.
Verified discount
25% off all accounts when you use code FAX
Official source · Last verified 2026-09-05
Verified discount
Discount code VAULT at checkout
Official source · Last verified 2026-09-05
Search answers
Blue Guardian Futures vs Lucid Trading FAQ
Is Blue Guardian Futures or Lucid Trading better for futures traders?
They're close on best-account score, so compare drawdown style, price, consistency rule, and platform support before choosing between Blue Guardian Futures and Lucid Trading.
Which is cheaper, Blue Guardian Futures or Lucid Trading?
Lucid Trading has the lower verified starting price — about $65 less in this dataset. Discounts can change often.
How do drawdown rules compare between Blue Guardian Futures and Lucid Trading?
They use the same model — end-of-day trailing drawdown — so drawdown mechanics are comparable and other rules should decide it.
Do Blue Guardian Futures and Lucid Trading have a consistency rule?
Both do: Blue Guardian Futures enforces a 40% consistency rule and Lucid Trading a 50%. Blue Guardian Futures's is the tighter of the two, so it constrains a big single day more.
Does FirmFax rank Blue Guardian Futures vs Lucid Trading using payouts?
Payout history is used as context. FirmFax scores focus on rules, track record, trader reputation, transparency, and accessibility.
More comparisons