Thrivetrading.com vs. Prop Trading Alternatives (General)

Here’s a general comparison based on common prop firm models:

Read more about thrivetrading.com:
Thrivetrading.com Review & First Look: A Deep Dive into Prop Trading
Thrivetrading.com Cons: Key Areas of Concern
Is Thrivetrading.com Legit?
Is Thrivetrading.com a Scam?
How to Cancel thrivetrading.com Subscription
Thrivetrading.com Pricing

Evaluation-Based Prop Firms

Many prop firms require traders to pass a series of challenges or evaluations before being granted access to a “funded” account.

• The Funding Pips Model: Often involves a 1-step or 2-step evaluation process where traders must hit profit targets while staying within specific drawdowns and daily loss limits. The initial cost might be lower, but traders must prove consistent profitability in a simulated environment first.
  • Pros: Lower initial risk (sometimes, as the evaluation fee can be minimal), forces discipline and consistency, weeding out unprepared traders.
  • Cons: Can be time-consuming, frustrating, and expensive if traders repeatedly fail challenges, often have strict time limits for completing evaluations.
• MyForexFunds (now defunct): A prominent example of a firm that offered various challenges and profit splits. Their model involved paying for challenges to prove skills. The legal issues faced by MyForexFunds highlight the regulatory complexities and scrutiny in the prop trading industry.
  • Pros: Popularity meant a large community, multiple account sizes.
  • Cons: Legal issues exposed regulatory risks, evaluation process could be lengthy.
• FTMO: One of the most well-known prop firms, offering a two-step “Challenge” and “Verification” process.
  • Pros: Reputable, clear rules, significant scaling opportunities, strong community.
  • Cons: Challenging evaluation process, strict daily loss limits, payout schedule might be slower for initial profits.

ThriveTrading.com’s “Instant Funded” Model

ThriveTrading.com stands out by skipping the evaluation phase, offering immediate access to “funded” accounts for an upfront fee.

• “Straight to Funded”: This is their primary unique selling proposition (USP). Traders pay a fee and gain immediate access to an account with a specified capital size.
  • Pros: No waiting period, immediate trading opportunity, appeals to confident traders who dislike evaluations.
  • Cons: High upfront non-refundable fee, immediate exposure to live account rules, no grace period to learn the firm’s specific rules in a risk-free environment.
• No Daily Loss Limits (EOD/Swing): This is a significant differentiator from many firms that impose strict daily drawdown limits.
  • Pros: Offers more flexibility in managing trades over a session or multiple days, potentially reducing pressure.
  • Cons: Can lead to larger single-day losses if not managed by the trader, increasing the risk of hitting the overall drawdown limit.
• Zero Profit Split on Sim (up to $60K): An unusual offer, as many firms take a cut even on evaluation profits.
  • Pros: Maximizes early profits for the trader, a strong incentive to join.
  • Cons: Raises questions about the firm’s revenue model if they are giving away simulated profits, further suggesting that the initial “funded” accounts are largely simulated.
• The “Trader Bank” and “Fund Incubator”: Unique incentive programs for long-term engagement and scaling.
  • Pros: Offers a clear path to larger capital and potential fund management, provides additional income stream.
  • Cons: Requires meeting specific long-term performance targets, which can be challenging and may keep traders tied to the platform.

Ethical Comparison (for Islamic users)

Regardless of the model, the fundamental ethical concerns remain consistent.

• Futures Trading Basis: All these firms, including ThriveTrading.com, deal primarily in futures trading (or other leveraged derivatives like forex/CFDs), which involves high gharar (uncertainty) and often riba (interest) through underlying mechanisms like margin.
  • Issue: Speculation on price movements without tangible asset exchange, risk of interest-based borrowing (margin), and lack of real economic contribution.
• Risk Transfer: While prop firms claim to provide capital, the business model often transfers much of the initial financial risk to the trader through non-refundable fees.
  • Issue: Users pay for access to a high-risk activity, with the firm structured to profit from the volume of participants rather than solely from trading profits generated by their capital.
• Profit Sharing: The profit-sharing model itself isn’t inherently unethical if based on a permissible partnership (mudharabah), but when applied to impermissible underlying assets (like speculative futures), it becomes problematic.
  • Issue: The “profits” are derived from an impermissible activity, tainting the entire transaction.

In summary, while ThriveTrading.com offers a novel approach to funding traders by bypassing evaluations, the inherent nature of futures trading means it falls outside the bounds of ethical Islamic finance.

When comparing it to other prop firms, the choice for an Islamic investor should ideally be to avoid this entire category of investment, opting instead for halal alternatives that focus on real economic activity and tangible asset-backed investments.