Alternatives to IFunds

Compare similar program types and see exactly why each match is suggested. How our matching works

6 matches
Our take on IFunds
AI Summary
Our take on IFunds is that it enforces strict risk controls and staged capital deployment, which tends to favor traders who operate within clearly defined risk envelopes and show consistent, rule-based performance. The firm is not for traders who rely on high-leverage, unhedged, or highly speculative bets, or who expect rapid gains from outsized drawdowns, as its framework caps risk exposure. A practice-critical rule is strict adherence to daily loss limits and green-light criteria for scaling; any breach triggers automatic reallocation or suspension of new capital, so routine risk management discipline is non-negotiable. Overall, capital allocation rewards steady, edge-driven traders who stay within limits, while dynamic breakout or variance-seeking styles will tend to underperform under this model.
Min account
$2,500
Max allocation
$400,000
Profit split
90%
Fee
$39
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ AquaFunded
86% match ≈ 80% rules + 20% numbers
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
AquaFunded
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $400,000
Profit split 90%
Fee $39
Rules overlap: 100% Numbers similarity: 71%
Min account
0.0%
Max allocation
-20.0%
Profit split
12.5%
Fee
-84.4%
Min account
$625
Max allocation
$400,000
Profit split
90%
Fee
$25
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ Instant Funding
80% match
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
Instant Funding
Min account $625
Max allocation $400,000
Profit split 90%
Fee $25
Numbers similarity: 51%
Min account
-75.0%
Max allocation
-20.0%
Profit split
12.5%
Fee
-90.0%
Min account
$5,000
Max allocation
$400,000
Profit split
90%
Fee
$27
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ Blue Guardian
79% match ≈ 80% rules + 20% numbers
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
Blue Guardian
Min account $5,000
Max allocation $400,000
Profit split 90%
Fee $27
Rules overlap: 100% Numbers similarity: 57%
Min account
100.0%
Max allocation
-20.0%
Profit split
12.5%
Fee
-89.2%
Min account
$5,000
Max allocation
$300,000
Profit split
80%
Fee
$98
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ FTUK
79% match
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
FTUK
Min account $5,000
Max allocation $300,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $98
Numbers similarity: 62%
Min account
100.0%
Max allocation
-40.0%
Profit split
0.0%
Fee
-60.8%
Min account
$5,000
Max allocation
$200,000
Profit split
90%
Fee
$105
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ Lark Funding
75% match ≈ 80% rules + 20% numbers
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
Lark Funding
Min account $5,000
Max allocation $200,000
Profit split 90%
Fee $105
Rules overlap: 50% Numbers similarity: 55%
Min account
100.0%
Max allocation
-60.0%
Profit split
12.5%
Fee
-58.0%
Min account
$1,250
Max allocation
$400,000
Profit split
80%
Fee
$25
Why this match?
IFunds ↔ Blueberry Funded
75% match
Program comparison
Side-by-side numbers
Base firm
IFunds
Min account $2,500
Max allocation $500,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $250
Candidate
Blueberry Funded
Min account $1,250
Max allocation $400,000
Profit split 80%
Fee $25
Numbers similarity: 60%
Min account
-50.0%
Max allocation
-20.0%
Profit split
0.0%
Fee
-90.0%
About this page
How to use these alternatives
Quick guide, then the full methodology below.
1) Check the match
Open “Why this score?” to see overlapping rules and numeric deltas.
2) Compare programs
Use “Compare” to pick One-step/Two-step/Instant (or a 4-program 50:50 combo).
3) Verify details
Before choosing, confirm final rules on the firm detail pages.
Methodology
What we score and what we don’t.
FAQ
Common questions about scores and comparisons.
Why is the score not 100%?
Programs differ in rules and costs. The score summarizes overlap, not identity.
Why can one firm appear with multiple compare options?
Do affiliate links affect the ranking?