1. Corporate Reliability and Track Record
The most striking difference lies in the longevity and regulatory environment of both firms.
- Audacity Capital is a veteran in the industry, founded in 2012 and based in London, UK. This provides a level of institutional stability rarely seen in the prop firm space. They operate as their own liquidity provider, suggesting a more direct link to the markets.
- QT Funded is a much newer entity, established in 2023 and based in South Africa. While they have quickly gained a high volume of reviews, they lack the decade-long track record of Audacity. They use Quant Tekel as their broker.
- Consequence for the trader: Traders seeking long-term security and an established corporate structure may favor Audacity, whereas those looking for modern, flexible evaluation models might lean towards QT Funded despite its shorter history.
2. Evaluation Models and Capital Allocation
Both firms offer diverse paths to funding, but their structures serve different trader profiles.
- Step Variety: Audacity offers 1-step (Ability One) and 2-step (Ability Challenge) evaluations, alongside an Instant Funding program. QT Funded provides 2-step, 3-step (Prime), and Instant options.
- Capital Limits: Audacity’s maximum initial allocation is $240,000, but their scaling plan is aggressive, doubling the account balance every 3 months if targets are met, up to $2,000,000.
- QT Funded Limits: They offer a higher total maximum allocation of $400,000 through merged accounts, but their instant accounts are capped at $99,000.
- Consequence for the trader: Audacity is designed for traders who want to grow a massive career account over years. QT Funded is better suited for traders who want to manage a high amount of capital across multiple accounts immediately.
3. Drawdown Mechanics: The Hidden Difficulty
The way daily loss is calculated is a critical factor that determines account longevity.
- Audacity Daily Drawdown: It is calculated based on the highest value between balance and equity. This is one of the strictest methods in the industry, as it "locks in" floating profits, making it very easy to breach the limit during a volatile reversal.
- QT Funded Daily Drawdown: Uses a balance-based calculation. This is significantly more trader-friendly, as it ignores floating equity and only cares about the closed balance at the start of the day.
- Max Drawdown: Audacity uses a balance-based static drawdown. QT Funded uses static drawdown for their Prime/Power accounts but trailing drawdown for their Instant accounts.
- Consequence for the trader: A trader at QT Funded has more "breathing room" for intraday swings. At Audacity, a large floating profit that isn't closed can tighten the daily loss limit to a dangerous degree.
4. Trading Rules and Restrictions
The "fine print" regarding EAs and news trading differs significantly between the two firms.
- Expert Advisors (EAs): Audacity only allows self-developed EAs. Commercial or third-party bots are strictly prohibited. QT Funded allows EAs but requires a pre-approval process, which adds a layer of manual friction before you can start trading.
- News Trading: Both have restrictions. Audacity bans opening or increasing trades 3 minutes before/after high-impact news. QT Funded has a wider 5-minute window of restriction, although their "Prime On Demand" account removes this limitation entirely.
- Stop Loss Requirements: Audacity does not require a Stop Loss. QT Funded requires a SL within 60 seconds of opening a trade on funded accounts.
- Consequence for the trader: Audacity is geared toward manual, discretionary traders or serious coders. QT Funded is more accessible for those using automated tools, provided they pass the approval hurdle, but requires stricter trade management via mandatory Stop Losses.
5. Payout Structures and Consistency Rules
Getting paid is the ultimate goal, and both firms have specific "quality control" measures.
- Consistency Formula: Audacity uses a complex formula:
[1 - (best day / total profit)] * 100. Traders need a score above 70 to be considered consistent. This prevents "one-shot" gambling. - Profit Caps: QT Funded uses a simpler consistency cap (35% or 25% of total profit from a single day).
- Payout Frequency: QT Funded offers On Demand or Biweekly payouts, which is highly competitive. Audacity’s "Funded Trader Program" only pays out once a 10% profit target is reached, which could take a long time for conservative traders.
- Profit Split: Audacity ranges from 75% to 90%. QT Funded starts at 80% but offers a 100% split specifically for their Prime On Demand accounts.
6. Execution Conditions: Leverage and Commissions
- Leverage: Audacity offers up to 100:1 on Forex in their challenge, but drops to 30:1 once funded. QT Funded maintains a steady 50:1 on Forex.
- Comissions: Audacity charges roughly $6/lot for Forex and $10/lot for Indices. QT Funded is lower at $4/lot across the board and offers a commission-free option.
- Consequence for the trader: Scalpers will find QT Funded more attractive due to lower commissions and more platform choices (cTrader, TradeLocker), whereas MT4/MT5 purists may prefer Audacity’s direct liquidity setup.
7. Summary: Which Firm Should You Choose?
Choose Audacity Capital if:
- You value longevity and institutional reputation above all else (founded 2012).
- You are a discretionary manual trader who doesn't use third-party EAs.
- You plan to scale to millions of dollars in capital over the long term.
- You prefer a UK-regulated business environment and direct liquidity.
Choose QT Funded if:
- You want a more lenient daily drawdown (balance-based).
- You want faster access to profits (On Demand payouts and 100% profit split options).
- You use cTrader or TradeLocker rather than just MetaTrader.
- You are looking for lower entry costs (3-step challenges) and lower commissions.






















