# AT Funded: Comprehensive Evaluation Against Industry Standards

> This analysis provides a detailed comparison of AT Funded's offerings against broader industry standards, focusing on profit splits, evaluation models, and more.

**Source:** https://thepropstandard.com/article/at-funded-analysis  
**Publisher:** The Prop Standard — independent analysis of the prop trading industry  
**Byline:** Editorial Team

---

**Published:** 2026-07-11  
**Last fact-checked:** 2026-09-19  
**Section:** Analysis  
**Reading time:** 3 min
---
## Framing: Dimensions of Comparison

Evaluating a proprietary trading firm like AT Funded requires a multi-dimensional approach. Key performance indicators include profit split percentages, the complexity of evaluation models, payout speed and reliability, platform and instrument breadth, and fairness of trading rules. These dimensions are critical as they directly affect a trader's potential to succeed, manage risk, and make informed choices regarding their investment in a funded trading program.

## Profit Split vs. Market

AT Funded offers a profit split of **50%**, which remains a prominent aspect of its value proposition. In the wider market, profit splits can range from **40% to 90%**, depending on the firm and the structure of its evaluation. Many firms tend to favor higher splits—often in the range of **70% to 90%**—to attract talent, especially in competitive landscapes. However, AT Funded's split is positioned in the lower-middle tier compared to the broader market, suggesting room for improvement to draw in more traders seeking higher compensation for their risk.

## Evaluation Difficulty vs. Market

AT Funded employs two evaluation models: a **1-step** and a **2-step** challenge structure. The **Pro Challenge** has a **max drawdown of 3%** and a profit target of **6%**, while the **2-Phase Challenge** requires an **8%** profit target over the first phase and a maximum drawdown of **10%** in total. In comparison, many firms typically present drawdown limits that range from **5% to 15%**, which can lead to an overall perception of evaluation challenges being overly stringent. AT Funded's rules suggest a moderate difficulty level that may suit more conservative traders but could be a deterrent to those seeking more aggressive performance metrics.

## Payout Speed & Reliability vs. Market

While specific payout speeds and statistics for AT Funded are currently unavailable, the mechanisms for payout include **Bank Transfer** and **Crypto**. These methods are common within the industry, where payout times can vary significantly. Typically, firms have payout frequencies that span from **daily to monthly**, with notable firms occasionally offering same-day payouts. As AT Funded has not provided concrete averages for payout speeds, it remains essential to approach expectations cautiously in terms of timely access to funds.

## Platform & Instrument Breadth vs. Market

Traders at AT Funded operate on the **MT5** platform and can access a variety of instruments, namely **Forex, Indices, Metals, Crypto, Energy,** and **Other Commodities**. The use of MT5 is a standard choice that remains prevalent among many prop trading firms. Instrument breadth at AT Funded appears promising, as the common industry standard provides access to several asset classes; however, some firms offer trading platforms that support broader options which may include equities or futures, giving them a slight edge. Overall, AT Funded provides a competitive range relative to many industry players, albeit perhaps not as extensive as the very best offerings available.

## Rule Fairness Assessment

Assessing the fairness of trading rules at AT Funded involves examining the combination of profit targets, drawdown limits, and complexity of evaluation paths. While the maximum drawdown of **10%** during evaluations might be stringent, traders at AT Funded benefit from clearly defined expectations without excessive layers of restrictions typically seen in other firms. Other firms may implement greater incentives for exceeding performance benchmarks or offer higher equity drawdowns for consistent profitable trading. Overall, the evaluation framework seems rather balanced, favoring straightforward terms over overly complex or punitive measures. However, traders sensitive to stringent target requirements may view AT Funded's framework as less favorable compared to firms that provide more relaxed terms.

## Comparison Summary Table

| Criterion | AT Funded | Industry Range |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Profit Split | 50% | 40% to 90% |
| Evaluation Models | 1-step, 2-step | Varies widely |
| Max Drawdown | 3% (1-step), 10% (2-step) | 5% to 15% |
| Profit Target | 6% (Phase 1), 8% (2-phase) | 5% to 15% |
| Payout Methods | Bank Transfer, Crypto | Diverse methods available |
| Platform | MT5 | Varies (MT4, MT5, proprietary platforms) |
| Instruments | Forex, Indices, Metals, Crypto, Energy | Broader options in some firms |

## Synthesis

In conclusion, while AT Funded presents a structured approach to prop trading with defined profit split and evaluation paths, it operates in a moderately competitive space characterized by wider industry ranges. Its offerings—particularly in terms of profit splits and drawdown rules—may not appeal to traders searching for the most liberal opportunities but do provide a stable framework for risk management and clearer expectations. The firm demonstrates potential, especially for traders who prioritize certainty and strongly defined metrics over aggressive profit-sharing deals. Therefore, AT Funded holds a respectable position in the prop trading landscape, but opportunities for enhancement certainly exist if it seeks to attract a broader spectrum of traders.
## Sources
Every figure above is taken from the pages below, which are the firms’ own published documentation unless stated otherwise.
- [For Traders](https://www.fortraders.com)
- [AT Funded](https://atfunded.com/)
## Tags
- [prop trading](https://thepropstandard.com/tag/prop-trading) (6 articles)
## Related analysis
- [Goat Funded Trader vs Industry Benchmarks: 2026 Deep-Dive Analysis](https://thepropstandard.com/article/goat-funded-trader-industry-benchmarks-2026-analysis) — markdown: https://thepropstandard.com/article/goat-funded-trader-industry-benchmarks-2026-analysis.md
- [FundedNext vs Industry Standards: 2026 Deep-Dive Analysis](https://thepropstandard.com/article/fundednext-vs-industry-standards-2026-analysis) — markdown: https://thepropstandard.com/article/fundednext-vs-industry-standards-2026-analysis.md
- [Alpha Capital Group vs Industry Standards: 2026 Deep Dive](https://thepropstandard.com/article/alpha-capital-group-vs-industry-standards-2026) — markdown: https://thepropstandard.com/article/alpha-capital-group-vs-industry-standards-2026.md
- [My Crypto Funding vs Market: 2026 Deep‑Dive Analysis](https://thepropstandard.com/article/my-crypto-funding-vs-market-2026-deep-dive-analysis) — markdown: https://thepropstandard.com/article/my-crypto-funding-vs-market-2026-deep-dive-analysis.md
- [Hantec Trader: A Comprehensive Prop Firm Analysis](https://thepropstandard.com/article/hantec-trader-comprehensive-analysis) — markdown: https://thepropstandard.com/article/hantec-trader-comprehensive-analysis.md
## Elsewhere in this network
- Firm data, pricing and payout terms: https://propfirmpal.com
- Industry news desk: https://propweekly.com
- Technology and vendor directory: https://proptechpal.com