Head-to-head comparison
FundingPips vs Sure Leverage Funding
Compare FirmFax scores, account rules, reputation, fees, platforms, and current offers before choosing.
FundingPips vs Sure Leverage Funding
FundingPips leads by 3 FirmFax points.
Missing info
B or C
Best account
FundingPips 2-Step 70/100 account scoreBest account
2 Step Challenge 64/100 account scoreFast answer
FundingPips edges this matchup on the FirmFax master score (70 vs 67, a 3 points gap). Sure Leverage Funding also carries fewer logged status issues (0 vs 1). The rules below decide the rest.
Best for FundingPips
Pick FundingPips for FundingPips 2-Step, its top-scored tracked account at 70/100 — 6 points clear of Sure Leverage Funding's best account.
Best for Sure Leverage Funding
Pick Sure Leverage Funding for 2 Step Challenge, its top-scored tracked account at 64/100.
Next step
FundingPips
Missing info
B or C
Best account: FundingPips 2-Step. Deal link.
Next step
Sure Leverage Funding
Best account: 2 Step Challenge. 40% off plus a 10% profit-split boost, or buy one get one.
The short version
What actually separates them
On every field we hold for both firms, FundingPips and Sure Leverage Funding publish the same answer. The score difference below comes from track record, reputation, and transparency rather than from the rules you trade under.
Identical on both: drawdown model, daily loss limit.
Not comparable yet: consistency rule, starting price, activation fee, minimum days to a first payout, trader profit split — 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
FundingPips wins more categories (3–0, 1 tied, 2 not comparable), but the right pick depends on which category matters most to you.
Price
No dataSure Leverage Funding publishes a starting price; we have none recorded for FundingPips, so there is no comparison to draw here yet.
Drawdown
TieBoth use a static drawdown.
Payouts
No dataSure Leverage Funding publishes a minimum number of days to a first payout; we have none recorded for FundingPips, so there is no comparison to draw here yet. Trader split is level or equally unrecorded, so nothing separates them here.
Rules
FundingPips has fairer rules overall (61 vs 54 on rule fairness).
Platforms
FundingPips supports more platforms (3 vs 2).
Overall value
FundingPips has the higher overall FirmFax score (70 vs 67).
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?
FundingPips is stronger when...
- Pick FundingPips for FundingPips 2-Step, its top-scored tracked account at 70/100 — 6 points clear of Sure Leverage Funding's best account.
- Entry cost: no starting price on record, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: static drawdown, daily loss limit 5% — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- We have no consistency rule recorded for FundingPips — check its rules page before you plan around one big day.
- Payouts: Reward cycle chosen on the Master account - weekly 60%, bi-weekly 80%, monthly 100%, on demand 90%, On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met.
Sure Leverage Funding is stronger when...
- Pick Sure Leverage Funding for 2 Step Challenge, its top-scored tracked account at 64/100.
- Entry cost: $43 starting price, activation fee not recorded.
- Risk model: static drawdown, daily loss limit 5% — confirm it fits how you size trades.
- Watch the 25% consistency rule before you scale into a big day.
- Payouts: 80/20 standard, Instant request after requirements; 24-business-hour guarantee advertised, first withdrawal from 14 days.
Before you buy
FundingPips has no starting price on record, so there is no price comparison to make here yet — check both firm pages directly.
Sure Leverage Funding has fewer logged status issues (0 vs 1); review each firm page before committing.
Payout cadence differs — FundingPips is On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met, Sure Leverage Funding is Instant request after requirements; 24-business-hour guarantee advertised — which compounds if you withdraw often.
Freshness: FundingPips was last reviewed 2026-09-10; Sure Leverage Funding on 2026-09-05.
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 | FundingPips | Sure Leverage Funding |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Profit target | $4,000 | Not recorded |
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 | FundingPips | Sure Leverage Funding |
|---|---|---|
| FirmFax master score | 70✓ | 67 |
| Best account score | 70 (FundingPips 2-Step)✓ | 64 (2 Step Challenge) |
| Reputation | Strong reputation✓ | Mixed reputation |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2023 |
| Starting price | Not recorded | $43 |
| Activation fee | Not recorded | Not recorded |
| Markets | Forex Crypto | Forex Crypto |
| Jurisdiction | UAE | UAE |
| Platforms | MetaTrader 5, cTrader, Match-Trader | MetaTrader 5, TradeLocker |
| Drawdown | Static | Static |
| Daily loss limit | 5% | 5% |
| Consistency rule | Not recorded | 25% |
| Profit split | Reward cycle chosen on the Master account - weekly 60%, bi-weekly 80%, monthly 100%, on demand 90% | 80/20 standard |
| Payout frequency | On-demand positioning after consistency requirements are met | Instant request after requirements; 24-business-hour guarantee advertised |
| Min days to payout | Not recorded | 14 |
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.
Current offer
Check current discount
Verified discount
40% off plus a 10% profit-split boost, or buy one get one
Official source · Last verified 2026-09-05
Search answers
FundingPips vs Sure Leverage Funding FAQ
Is FundingPips or Sure Leverage Funding better for forex and crypto traders?
FundingPips has the higher best-account FirmFax score right now. The better pick is the one whose static drawdown, platforms, and fees match how you trade.
Which is cheaper, FundingPips or Sure Leverage Funding?
We cannot answer that yet: FundingPips has no starting price on record. Compare both firm pages directly.
How do drawdown rules compare between FundingPips and Sure Leverage Funding?
They use the same model — static drawdown — so drawdown mechanics are comparable and other rules should decide it.
Do FundingPips and Sure Leverage Funding have a consistency rule?
We have no consistency rule on record for FundingPips, and Sure Leverage Funding enforces a 25% consistency rule. A blank is not a "no rule" — confirm it on the firm page before you count on it.
Does FirmFax rank FundingPips vs Sure Leverage Funding using payouts?
Payout history is used as context. FirmFax scores focus on rules, track record, trader reputation, transparency, and accessibility.
More comparisons