Independent Tech Provider Data & Comparisons
FPFX Tech vs Match-Trader
Every figure below is computed from the same normalised dataset, so the two vendors are measured on identical terms — including the ones they would rather you compared on a call.
FPFX Tech vs Match-Trader — the short answer
Match-Trader publishes a price and FPFX Tech does not, so the two can only be compared on cost after a call with FPFX Tech. FPFX Tech names 25 integrations against 16 for Match-Trader. On security, FPFX Tech names no certifications publicly and Match-Trader names ISO 27001. Across 9 directly comparable measures, FPFX Tech leads on 4, Match-Trader on 2 and 3 are tied; a further 24 rows carry no winner, either because the better answer depends on the firm you are running or because one side publishes nothing.
27/100 · Mostly sales-led
How much FPFX Tech publishes — not how good it is
80/100 · Publishes almost everything
How much Match-Trader publishes — not how good it is
4
Measures where FPFX Tech leads
2
Measures where Match-Trader leads
3
Measures where they are level
24
Rows with no winner
Where FPFX Tech wins
4- Risk engine capabilities4 capabilities
- Back-office capabilities4 capabilities
- Named integrations25
- Security practices published4 practices
Where Match-Trader wins
2- Publishes a price at allYes
- Of those, shipped natively3
Side by side
34A value in green is more favourable to the buying firm on a measure with a defensible direction — a lower cost, a shorter lock-in, a published figure where the other side publishes none. Rows where the better choice depends on how you intend to run the firm, such as deployment model or hosting region, are left plain.
Cost
Publishes a price at all
A vendor that will not quote a number in public cannot be shortlisted on cost, only on a call.
Quote only
Yes
Estimated first-year cost
Twelve normalised months on the cheapest recurring tier, plus any published setup fee. Excludes per-account and revenue-share components, which depend on your own volume.
Not published
$30,000
Cheapest recurring tier, per month
Quarterly and annual tiers are divided down so the two vendors are on the same basis.
Not published
$2,500
One-off setup fee
Not published
None
Costs the headline price excludes
Data feeds, liquidity, premium support tiers — the parts of the bill that arrive later.
MetaTrader (MT4/MT5) licensing from MetaQuotes, described as separate with substantial setup and ongoing fees
Not published
Product
Services offered
Risk engine, CRM, Back office, Payments, KYC +2 more
Trading platform, Risk engine, CRM, Back office, Payments +4 more
Module categories covered
How much of the stack one contract covers. Fewer categories is not worse — a focused risk engine may beat a suite.
Risk Engine, CRM, Other, Affiliate
Trading Platform, CRM, Other, Liquidity
Risk engine capabilities
4 capabilities
2 capabilities
Drawdown types it can enforce
Not published
Trailing
Back-office capabilities
4 capabilities
3 capabilities
White label
Yes
Yes
Branding control
Logo, Colours, Custom domain
Logo, Full CSS/theme, White-labelled mobile apps
Integrations & reach
Platforms supported
MT4, MT5, cTrader, DXtrade, Match-Trader +4 more
Match-Trader, MT5, TradingView
Trader terminals
MT4, MT5, cTrader, DXtrade +4 more
Match-Trader, MT5, TradingView
Asset classes
Forex, CFDs, Futures, Crypto
Forex
Named integrations
Counts what the vendor names publicly, whether it ships natively, is a supported partner, or is something you build against their API.
25
16
Of those, shipped natively
"Ships it" and "connects to it" are different purchases. Only the first needs no work from you.
2
3
API surface
Not published
REST, WebSocket
Running it
Time to go live
The vendor’s own figure. Where they quote a range, the upper bound is used.
Not published
~7 days
Deployment models
SaaS, white label, self-hosted and on-premise are different products with different obligations — neither column wins by default.
SaaS, White Label
SaaS, White Label, Self Hosted +1 more
Public status page
The cheapest available check on whether a vendor is honest about its own incidents.
Not published
Yes
Support channels
Email, Ticket portal
Live chat, Email
Support hours
24/7
24/7
Dedicated account manager
Not published
Yes
Migration support off an incumbent
Yes
Yes
Security & track record
Security certifications
Only named, checkable certifications are recorded. "Bank-grade security" is not SOC 2.
Not published
ISO 27001
Security practices published
4 practices
2 practices
Data residency options
US, EU
Not published
Prop firms currently powered
A vendor-reported figure. Scale is evidence of durability, not of fit for your firm.
150
Not published
Named client firms
Only firms one side or the other names publicly. Confidential clients are excluded by design.
Not published
E8, Crypto Fund Trader, FundingPips +6 more
Years in market
6
Not published
Headquarters
Boca Raton, United States
Warsaw, Poland
Prop Tech Pal verification
Verified
Verified
Contract & exit
Disclosure grade
Prop Tech Pal’s own measure of how much of the diligence surface the vendor publishes. It grades transparency, never product quality.
D (27/100)
A (80/100)
Money figures are normalised: twelve months on the cheapest recurring tier plus any published setup fee, excluding per-account and revenue-share components, which depend on your own volume. Prop Tech Pal does not sell placement in this comparison — how every figure here is computed is set out in full on the methodology page.
Ask on the first call
9Everything below is missing from the public record, so this comparison cannot settle it. A vendor not publishing something is not evidence of anything — it is a question you have to ask rather than look up.
A public price
FPFX Tech
Contract length and notice period
FPFX Tech
Data ownership and export on exit
FPFX Tech
Named security certifications
FPFX Tech
An uptime figure or status page
FPFX Tech
A time to go live
FPFX Tech
A public API surface
FPFX Tech
Contract length and notice period
Match-Trader
Data ownership and export on exit
Match-Trader
Frequently asked questions
6Only one of the two publishes enough to price. Match-Trader works out at roughly $30,000 in year one; FPFX Tech does not publish a comparable figure, so the honest answer is that you cannot compare them on cost without a quote.
FPFX Tech quotes Not published to go live and Match-Trader quotes ~7 days. Both are vendor-stated and both assume you arrive with your entity, banking, KYC provider and rule set already decided — in practice the vendor is rarely the long pole. On migration off an incumbent, FPFX Tech offers support and Match-Trader offers support.
FPFX Tech names 25 integrations, 2 of them native and supports MT4, MT5, cTrader, DXtrade, Match-Trader, TradeLocker, Rithmic, Tradovate, Proprietary web platform. Match-Trader names 16, 3 native and supports Match-Trader, MT5, TradingView. Check the type as well as the count: something that ships natively costs you nothing to turn on, a partner integration usually costs a second contract, and an API-only integration is engineering work you own.
Neither we nor anyone else can answer that from public data — what we can tell you is what each publishes. FPFX Tech names no certifications and publishes 4 security practices; Match-Trader names ISO 27001 and publishes 2. Match-Trader runs a public status page, which is the cheapest available signal that a vendor reports its own incidents. Ask both for the current report, not the badge.
FPFX Tech scores 27/100 on our disclosure grade (D — mostly sales-led) and Match-Trader scores 80/100 (A). FPFX Tech does not publish: a public price; contract length and notice period; data ownership and export on exit; named security certifications; an uptime figure or status page; a time to go live; a public api surface. Match-Trader does not publish: contract length and notice period; data ownership and export on exit. The grade measures transparency, not quality — a strong vendor with a sales-led motion can score badly. Use the gaps as the agenda for the first call.
On the 9 directly comparable measures on this page, FPFX Tech leads on 4 and Match-Trader on 2, with 3 tied, and 24 carrying no winner at all. Which of those matters depends on the firm you are running: cost dominates before you have volume and stops dominating after, integration depth decides how much engineering you own, and contract terms decide how expensive it is to be wrong. Prop Tech Pal does not recommend one vendor over another and does not sell placement in this comparison.
Stay Ahead in Prop Firm Tech
Compare verified providers, track new integrations, and get vendor pricing updates as they land.
Resources
All information provided on this site is intended solely for educational and informational purposes related to prop firm technology and does not serve in any way as a specific procurement recommendation, business recommendation, investment opportunity analysis, or similar general recommendation.
Prop Tech Pal provides comparison, review, and educational resources only. We do not operate as a proprietary trading firm, technology vendor, broker, or custodian, do not offer simulated trading accounts or evaluations, and do not provide execution or custody of funds.
The information on this site is not directed at residents in any country or jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local laws or regulations.
Prop Tech Pal does not act as a broker and does not accept any deposits.
Data, tools, and third-party references on this site are provided for informational purposes; availability and accuracy may depend on third-party sources outside our control.
© 2026 Prop Tech Pal. All rights reserved.