FundingPips

• −Reviews posted on a single day report accounts breached, blocked, closed or suspended over news most of them say was not rated red or top impact, alongside more reports of accounts terminated or blocked over device matches.
• −The firm answered none of the reviews pulled from the window.

👀 Whether the firm answers any of the news rule breach reports on the record, or reinstates an account.

FundingPips: 13 Trustpilot reviewers in a day say accounts were breached, blocked, closed or suspended over news; 11 say not high-impact Thirteen distinct Trustpilot reviewers, publishing on 2026-09-21, say their accounts were breached, blocked, closed, suspended or terminated over a trade around a news event. Twelve are one-star, one is two-star. Eleven say the event was not red or high-impact; eight of them name Forex Factory. Five describe the firm's own calendar: one says it marked the same event restricted, one says the event appeared about 30 minutes later, one says medium events are treated as high-impact, one says the dashboard calendar showed no data, one says it listed only low-impact news. The firm has not replied to any of the 120 reviews pulled.

Traders say FundingPips strips profits made around unscheduled news while leaving the losses A rule covering unscheduled events is being read as removing gains that follow posts traders cannot see coming, while losses from the same moves stand. Three accounts with a combined reach above 40,000 raised it within seven hours, the largest passing 29,000 views. Separately, traders report the firm's Prime tier charges $10 per lot against the $7 its broker charges, and that they are being pushed toward Prime accounts.

FundingPips: 6 more traders complain of CID or Device ID checks, 4 say accounts were terminated or blocked, one waiting 66 days for evidence On 2026-09-21, six Trustpilot reviewers raised CID or Device ID complaints. Four say their accounts were terminated or blocked over a match and contest the decision, including a client since 2023 whose $50,000 Master #20831638 was terminated 2026-09-20 with profit and refund refused; account 20340758, terminated 17 July and unresolved at 66 days despite repeated evidence requests; and an instant-funded account blocked at about 3% profit near a first payout over a match with a neighbour. A fifth, told after passing phase 1 that four accounts in other names share their CID, denies any link. A sixth wants the rule enforced in evaluation, not after Master. No firm replies on 120 reviews pulled.

FundingPips traders report Device ID terminations on Trustpilot and Reddit; in-window one-star share hits 24% Trustpilot reviews of FundingPips pulled 2026-08-19/20 run 12 one-star of 50 in-window (24%), versus 17.5% (21 of 120) at the 08-15 read and an 8.6% lifetime one-star share; the two reads cover different windows and sample sizes. 4 of the 12 one-star reviews describe terminations the reviewers say FundingPips attributed to CID or Device ID matches; one reviewer (2026-08-20) says a Master Account earned from a 2-Step Standard evaluation was permanently banned one week after a completed payout and before a larger pending payout, with no evidence shown across three appeals. 3 reviews describe a master-account strike system and a 1% to 1.2% per-trade-idea drawdown limit the reviewers say was not in the program description. On Reddit, an r/PropFirmTester post of 2026-08-19 (score 6, 10 comments) reports a permanent termination over a Device ID match and was cross-posted the same day to r/propfirm and r/FundingPipsOfficial; separate authors report the same allegation on 2026-08-13 (r/Daytrading, $50k Flex account closed after payout eligibility), 2026-07-24 (r/PropFirmTester, score 24, 18 comments, 4 Master Accounts closed and $1,100 in pending payouts canceled over an alleged Device ID/IP match), and 2026-07-18 (r/PropFirmTester, score 6, Shared CID flag on personal devices). All claims are trader-reported; FundingPips has not responded in the collected material. Editorial note: one 08-19 review attributes an inflammatory quote to the CEO; the quote is unverified, appears nowhere else in the collected material, and is excluded from publishable copy.