FundingPips 1-Step vs Zero Challenge: Evaluation or Instant Funding?

The 1-Step and Zero are FundingPips' two fastest paths to a funded account. The 1-Step requires one evaluation phase—potentially passable in 3 days. The Zero skips evaluation entirely. Both share tight risk parameters. Both attract aggressive, confident traders.

But the structural differences between a static evaluation drawdown and a trailing funded drawdown create fundamentally different trading experiences. One model rewards passing a test to earn better trading conditions. The other gives you instant access at the cost of permanently tighter rules.

I've analyzed both models extensively through community trading logs, my own comparison testing, and the cold math of survival probabilities. The answer isn't as close as the marketing suggests.

Tested firsthand: I've traded multiple FundingPips accounts—passed evaluations on 2-Step Standard and Pro, dealt with the funded-stage rule switches, and withdrawn real money through Tuesday Payday. What you're reading comes from live funded trading, not from reading their marketing page.

For the complete breakdown of every FundingPips account type—including how 2-Step Standard, Pro, 1-Step, and Zero differ in drawdown rules, profit splits, and pricing, plus which account size actually makes sense for your trading style—read my full FundingPips accounts overview. It covers all five sizes from $5K to $100K with real cost analysis. For the absolute latest, check FundingPips' website or their FAQ section.

Complete Comparison

At the Same Price, One Model Is Clearly Better

At $50K, both cost $399. Identical price. But look at what each dollar buys:

The 1-Step gives you 6% static drawdown—your floor is set at purchase and never moves. The Zero gives you 5% trailing—your floor chases your equity upward and never drops back down. That's 20% less drawdown room on the Zero, and the type of drawdown that punishes profitable trading by raising the termination level after every good day.

The 1-Step has no floating loss cap. Your open positions can show $2,000 in unrealized loss on a $50K account and the only constraint is your drawdown. The Zero caps combined floating loss at 1%—$500 on a $50K account. Two lots of EUR/USD moving 25 pips against you hits that cap. That's not a bad trade. That's normal market noise during London session.

The 1-Step allows weekend holding. The Zero doesn't. The 1-Step has a 5-minute news restriction on the funded stage. The Zero has 10 minutes. The 1-Step charges $5/lot commission. The Zero charges $7. The 1-Step refunds your fee after 4 payouts. The Zero never does.

The Zero wins on exactly one factor: speed. You skip the evaluation entirely. On the 1-Step, you need a minimum of 3 trading days to pass—realistically 7–14 days for most traders.

That's the trade. A week of evaluation time buys you better drawdown, no floating loss cap, lower commissions, weekend holding, a shorter news window, and a fee refund. The Zero charges the same $399 for inferior conditions on every metric except immediate access.

The Evaluation Isn't a Cost—It's Insurance

Most traders frame the 1-Step evaluation as a hurdle: something to overcome before reaching the funded stage. That framing is wrong. The evaluation is a filter that protects you from committing to funded-stage rules with a strategy that won't survive them.

If your strategy can't produce 10% profit before hitting 6% drawdown on a demo-like evaluation account with no news restrictions, no consistency rule, and no floating loss cap—it definitely won't survive the Zero's tighter funded rules long-term.

The evaluation asks: "Can this strategy produce enough profit relative to risk?" If the answer is no, you lose $399 but gain the knowledge that your approach needs adjustment. On the Zero, you discover the same answer—but after days or weeks of funded trading where every pip of drawdown raises the trailing floor, the floating loss cap forces micro-sizing, and the consistency rule blocks your payouts.

Both outcomes cost $399. But the 1-Step failure happens faster (evaluation breach) and with a cleaner lesson (strategy didn't hit 10% before 6% loss). The Zero failure happens slower (days to weeks of declining equity) and with a muddier lesson (was it the strategy, the trailing drawdown, the floating loss cap, or the consistency rule that killed it?).

The Commission Gap Compounds Over Time

The $2/lot difference ($5 vs $7 on forex/metals) sounds trivial on a single trade. It's not trivial over a trading career.

At 20 trades per month (conservative, 1 trade per day), the Zero costs $40 more monthly. That's $480 per year. At 50 trades per month (moderate scalper), the gap widens to $100/month or $1,200/year. At 100+ trades per month (active scalper), the Zero costs $200+/month more—$2,400+ annually in additional commissions.

For scalpers specifically—the trader profile that the Zero is supposedly designed for—the commission difference is most punishing. A scalper taking 15 trades daily at 1.5 lots each pays $157.50/day on the 1-Step funded account and $220.50/day on the Zero. That's $63/day, $1,260/month, or $15,120/year in extra commissions on the Zero. The 95% profit split doesn't compensate for $15,000 in annual commission overhead.

The commission difference also affects indices and crypto traders—not at all. These instruments are commission-free on both models. If you exclusively trade NAS100 or US30, the commission gap is zero and you can ignore this factor entirely.

Static vs Trailing: The Outcome Difference on Real Trades

Here's a scenario that plays out constantly on both models:

The setup: You enter EUR/USD long on a $50K account with 2 lots. The trade drops 35 pips before reversing and hitting your 60-pip target. A perfectly valid setup with a normal adverse excursion.

On the 1-Step funded account (static drawdown): The $700 floating loss is within all limits. No rules triggered. You hold through the drawdown. Trade hits target. +$1,200 profit. Account balance: $51,200. Drawdown floor: unchanged at $47,000. Room remaining: $4,200.

On the Zero (trailing drawdown): The $700 floating loss exceeds the $500 floating loss cap (1% of $50K). Account terminated. You were right on direction, right on the setup, right on the target—and dead because normal market noise briefly exceeded an arbitrary cap.

This isn't an edge case. This is what happens multiple times per week on volatile pairs during active sessions. The floating loss cap doesn't just limit your risk—it eliminates trades that would be profitable on any other account type.

Who the Zero Is Actually For

After analyzing hundreds of Zero trading logs in the FundingPips community, the profile of traders who survive is narrow and specific:

Ultra-consistent session scalpers. Win rate 65%+. Average winner: $50–$150. Average loser: $30–$80. Never more than 2 positions open simultaneously. Strict session-only trading (close everything by end of London or end of NY). Daily P&L standard deviation under 30% of mean. This profile naturally stays within the floating loss cap, satisfies the consistency rule, and accumulates profit steadily enough to reach the trailing drawdown lock before a losing streak hits.

Traders already funded on other accounts. If you have a $100K Standard generating consistent income, adding a $50K Zero is a calculated bet—not your livelihood. The Standard provides stability; the Zero adds 95% split upside. If the Zero breaches, your Standard account continues unaffected.

Everyone else should take the 1-Step. If your strategy involves stops wider than 15 pips, positions held longer than 30 minutes, more than one lot on major pairs, any overnight or weekend holding, or any reliance on news moves—the Zero's rules will terminate your account before the strategy has time to work.

The Fee Refund Changes the Long-Term Math

The 1-Step fee ($399 at $50K) is refunded after your 4th funded payout. At bi-weekly payouts, that's 8 weeks of funded trading. After 2 months, your 1-Step challenge was effectively free.

The Zero fee ($399 at $50K) is never refunded. Ever. It's a permanent cost regardless of how long you sustain the account or how much you earn.

Over a 12-month funded trading period, the 1-Step's effective cost is $0 (fee refunded by month 2). The Zero's effective cost is $399 plus approximately $1,200–$2,400 in additional commissions (at 50–100 trades/month). The 1-Step funded trader pays less in year one despite identical account fees at purchase.

The Zero's 95% split advantage (vs the 1-Step's 80% at bi-weekly) generates approximately $75–$375/month more income depending on profitability. Over 12 months, that's $900–$4,500 in additional income from the split advantage. Against $1,600–$2,800 in additional costs (permanent fee + commissions), the Zero only wins on net income if your monthly profits consistently exceed 3–4% and your trade frequency stays under 50/month.

The Expected Value Calculation

The most honest comparison factors in survival probability:

Even with conservative survival estimates, the 1-Step's expected value is roughly double the Zero's. The higher split can't compensate for the dramatically lower survival probability.

The only scenario where the Zero's expected value exceeds the 1-Step's is if Zero survival rates exceed 50%—which requires the specific ultra-consistent scalper profile described above. For that small subset of traders, the Zero is genuinely optimal. For everyone else, the math favors the evaluation.

Strategy Differences in Practice

On the 1-Step Evaluation

You're trying to reach +10% before hitting –6%. This is a sprint—aggressive but controlled. Risk 0.75–1% per trade. Target 1.5–2R per trade. Daily target: $300–$500 on a $50K account. Aim to pass in 10–15 trading days. No consistency rule, no news restriction, no floating loss cap during evaluation. Trade your way.

On the 1-Step Funded Account

Static drawdown. No floating loss cap. 5-minute news window. Weekend holding allowed. Consistency rule only on On-Demand payouts. You're trading with better conditions than the Zero on every parameter except profit split.

On the Zero

Trailing drawdown from day one. 1% floating loss cap from the first trade. 15% consistency rule on every payout. No weekend holding. 10-minute news window. $7/lot commissions. You're operating under the tightest rules FundingPips offers while trying to generate enough profit to reach the drawdown lock and establish a consistent income.

The 1-Step evaluation is temporary discomfort (harder target) for permanent comfort (better funded rules). The Zero is permanent discomfort (tighter rules) for temporary convenience (skipping evaluation).

My Verdict

At $50K ($399 for both): The 1-Step is the better product. Period. Better drawdown, no floating loss cap, lower commissions, fee refund, and weekend holding. The only sacrifice is 3–14 days of evaluation time. If a week of evaluation feels like too high a price for dramatically better funded conditions, recalibrate your time horizon—you're planning to trade this account for months or years.

At $100K ($555 vs $499): The Zero is $56 cheaper upfront. But the 1-Step still dominates on every funded-stage metric. The $56 savings doesn't compensate for trailing drawdown, a floating loss cap, higher commissions, and no fee refund.

The one exception: You are an ultra-consistent scalper who's already funded elsewhere, who has traded trailing drawdown accounts successfully, and who values 3–10 days of time at more than the cumulative cost of inferior trading conditions. This describes maybe 5–10% of FundingPips' customer base. For the other 90%+, the 1-Step is the clear choice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I run a 1-Step evaluation and a Zero simultaneously?

Yes. Both accounts operate independently against FundingPips' $300K total capital limit. Some traders use this as a hedge—if the 1-Step passes, they have a funded account with better rules. The Zero generates income immediately while they wait.

If I pass the 1-Step, will my funded account have the same rules as the Zero?

No. The 1-Step funded account has better rules: static drawdown, no mandatory 15% consistency rule (unless you choose On-Demand payouts), no 1% floating loss cap, weekend holding allowed, 5-minute news window (vs 10), and $5/lot commissions (vs $7).

Is there any scenario where the Zero outperforms long-term?

If you survive 12+ months, the 95% split generates $900–$4,500 more annually than the 1-Step's 80% bi-weekly split. But that advantage only materializes if survival rates are comparable—and they aren't. The Zero's tighter rules produce significantly higher breach rates. On an expected-value basis, the 1-Step wins for the vast majority of trader profiles.

What about using the 2-Step Standard instead of either?

The Standard ($289 at $50K) is cheaper than both, with 10% static drawdown and 5% daily loss—dramatically more forgiving than either the 1-Step or Zero. For traders who aren't specifically drawn to the 1-Step's speed or the Zero's instant access, the Standard is the best overall FundingPips product.

‍