FundingPips 2-Step vs Zero Challenge: The Complete Trader's Guide

This is the fundamental FundingPips decision: do you spend 2–6 weeks proving yourself through the 2-Step Standard evaluation, or do you pay for instant access to a funded account through the Zero model?

The answer depends on one thing: how you handle drawdown. If trailing drawdown terrifies you, take the evaluation. If you've traded trailing drawdown accounts before and survived, Zero might save you time.

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FundingPips accounts—passed evaluations on 2-Step Standard and Pro, dealt with the funded-stage rule switches, and withdrawn real money through Tuesday Payday.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 Table

The Drawdown Difference Visualized

Here's how a $50K account performs under identical market conditions in both models:

Scenario: +$2,000 profit → –$1,500 pullback → +$3,000 recovery

After the same trading performance, the Standard account has $8,500 in drawdown room. The Zero has $2,675. The Standard trader feels comfortable. The Zero trader is one bad day from termination.

This is the core decision. The Zero's trailing drawdown means your safety margin barely grows despite positive trading. The Standard's static drawdown means every dollar of profit increases your cushion permanently.

Long-Term Value Analysis

Despite the higher split, the Zero's lower survival probability makes the Standard's expected value more than double the Zero's. The math overwhelmingly favors taking the evaluation.

Decision Framework

If you answered "Standard" 4+ times: Take the 2-Step Standard. The evaluation time is a small price for substantially better funded-stage rules.

If you answered "Zero" 5+ times: You might be a genuine Zero candidate—a consistent, scalping-focused trader who values immediate capital access.

Transition Strategy: Standard First, Zero Later

The optimal approach for maximizing income while managing risk:

Phase 1: Pass and sustain a 2-Step Standard funded account. Prove your strategy, build confidence with the generous drawdown, and establish consistent payouts.

Phase 2 (after 3+ months): Add a Zero account as supplemental capital. Your proven track record makes the Zero's tighter rules manageable because you already know your strategy works.

Phase 3: Run both accounts simultaneously—Standard for stability, Zero for higher-split income on strategies you've already validated.

My Recommendation

For 85% of traders: 2-Step Standard. The 10% static drawdown, no floating loss cap, 1:100 leverage, weekend holding, and fee refund create a dramatically easier funded trading environment. The 2–6 weeks of evaluation is an investment in long-term sustainability.

For proven scalpers: Zero—but only if you've already passed and sustained a funded account elsewhere, your average daily P&L variance is low, and you never hold positions beyond the session.

For everyone: If you're asking "should I take the Zero?"—the answer is probably no. Traders who belong on the Zero don't need to ask.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I switch from Zero to Standard if the rules are too tight?

No. Account types are fixed at purchase. You'd need to buy a separate 2-Step Standard challenge while your Zero account continues independently.

Is the Zero faster to profitability than the Standard?

In theory, yes—you skip 2–6 weeks of evaluation. In practice, many Zero accounts breach before their first payout (which requires 7 profitable days). A Standard trader who takes 4 weeks to pass but sustains the funded account for months is further ahead.

Can the Standard eventually match the Zero's 95% split?

Yes—through the Hot Seat scaling program. At Hot Seat tier, Standard accounts receive 100% profit splits with on-demand payouts. This takes approximately 16 successful payout cycles, but achieves a better split without any of the Zero's rule constraints.

Switching Costs: Why Starting Right Matters

If you start on the Zero and realize the rules are too tight, you've lost $399 and need to purchase a new Standard evaluation ($289). Total cost: $688 for what would have been $289 if you'd chosen Standard initially.

If you start on the Standard and wish you'd gone Zero: you've paid $289 and have a funded account with better rules. There's nothing to fix.

The asymmetric risk clearly favors starting with the Standard. The worst case (wishing you'd chosen Zero) still leaves you with a solid funded account. The worst case starting with Zero (realizing it's too tight) costs you an extra $399.

Real Trading Scenario: Same Trade, Both Models

The Monday morning trade: You enter EUR/USD long at London open with 2 lots. The position drops 35 pips before reversing and hitting your 60-pip target.

On the Standard ($50K): The $700 floating loss is well within limits. No rules triggered. You hold through the drawdown. +$1,200 profit booked.

On the Zero ($50K): The $700 floating loss exceeds the 1% floating loss cap ($500). Account is terminated. Your correct trade with a normal drawdown killed your account before it could work.

This single scenario—a perfectly valid setup that any experienced trader would take—survives easily on the Standard but terminates the Zero. This is the reality gap between these two models that no pricing comparison can capture.

‍