is ftmo still the benchmark in 2026 or have others genuinely overtaken it

[wildnorth]

for years ftmo was the default name people pointed newcomers to. with so many firms launching since, is it still the benchmark for reliability, or are people only naming it out of habit while newer firms offer better splits and conditions? looking for current views from people trading these accounts now, not reputation from years ago.

[Dean]

its still a benchmark for reliability specifically, because it survived the period where a lot of flashier firms collapsed. newer firms often beat it on headline split or cheaper fees, but the reason people still name it is that its track record of actually paying through different market conditions is long. for a newcomer, benchmark-of-reliability and best-headline-deal are different questions, and the older name wins the first while losing the second.

[noahsmith]

exactly, separate reliability from terms. the established names rarely have the best profit split or the cheapest challenge, they win on having been around long enough to trust with accumulated payouts. if your priority is the best deal you look elsewhere, if its lowest chance of the firm vanishing, the long-survivors still lead. pick which you value more.

[jeremyfox]

people name the old guard out of habit and to sound safe, then quietly chase the newer firm with the 90 percent split and aggressive discount, and act surprised when it has problems. the benchmark talk is what they recommend to others, not what their own money does.

[thomas_x]

theres truth in that gap between what people recommend and what they personally try. my own approach reconciles it: i keep my core funded capital with an established benchmark firm for safety, and i experiment with a small account at a newer firm if its terms are genuinely better, treating the newer one as the risk-on bet. recommend the safe one, experiment with the new one, never reverse those roles.

[maxturner]

for a first ever funed attempt, should i just go with an established benchmark name even if the deal is worse, to reduce variables?

[silvercloud]

yes, for a first attempt reducing variables is worth more than a better split. go with a long-established firm even at worse terms so that if something goes wrong, you can be confident it was your trading and not the firm, and youre not also gambling on the firms survival. optimise the deal later once you know your own results are solid. first attempt, minimise unknowns.

[Ian]

established for the firrst attempt, chase deals once youre proven.