FPFX Tech

Everything is sold as one product, the Prop Trading Tech Kit. The vendor's own breakdown of what sits inside it covers seven areas: Custom Plans & Rules, the CRM Admin Portal, Trader Dashboards, Risk Management, the Affiliate Portal, Trading Contests and Discount Codes. There is no published add-on price list, so assume the kit is bought whole and confirm scope on the call.

Plans, rules and metrics are built to the firm's specification rather than selected from presets, with automated onboarding, account management and breach logic behind them. Breach detection is described as real-time on trading metrics, conditions and targets, and monitoring covers drawdown, leverage and position-size rules.

What is not published is the detail an operator actually needs: which drawdown types are offered, whether drawdown tracks equity or balance, and what the system does when a rule breaks. Whether consistency rules, news filters or detection of specific prohibited strategies are supported is not stated on the Tech Kit page.

The back-office half is the admin portal: every account a trader holds, every trade, every email, every payout request, with internal user permissions, edit logs and multi-factor security. The affiliate portal supports multi-level programmes, configurable payout tiers, tracking links and affiliate-specific discount codes, with traders able to run their affiliate business from their own dashboard.

FPFX ships no terminal of its own. Its value is connecting the ones traders already want, which means platform choice stays yours but platform economics do too.

Named connections are MT4, MT5, cTrader, DXtrade, Match-Trader, TradeLocker, Rithmic and Tradovate, plus GooeyTrade (also written GooeyPro), which is an in-group platform owned by the same parent rather than a third party. On-exchange futures run through Rithmic. There is a specific warning from the group about MetaTrader: it is possible, but licensing comes separately from MetaQuotes with substantial setup and ongoing fees, and the group flags compliance risk around shared servers. For US-facing operations it points at DXtrade and Match-Trader instead.

Asset coverage as FPFX states it is FX/CFDs, on-exchange futures and on-exchange crypto, with the pitch being that you can run all three simultaneously with plans tailored per asset class. The white-label side of the group also markets equities and prediction-market firms, which suggests the same infrastructure stretches further than fpfxtech.com claims.

Two gaps worth pricing in. Mobile is never mentioned: no iOS or Android trader app is claimed for the dashboard, and traders would presumably use the platform vendor's own apps. And while multi-lingual dashboard translation is offered as a capability, FPFX does not say which languages are available out of the box, so treat any specific language as something to confirm rather than assume.

FPFX is marketed strictly as SaaS with white-label branding on top. You get a hosted environment carrying your logo, colours and domain, and the group's launch process treats platform, payment and risk integrations as pre-configured.

Self-hosting and on-premise are not offered anywhere in the marketing, but they are also never explicitly ruled out, so treat them as an unanswered question rather than a refusal. If running the stack in your own infrastructure is a requirement, that is a first-call question.

The hosting detail an operator would want is entirely absent. There is no published hosting region, no named cloud provider, no statement on co-location with venues and no latency figure. The group says trading platforms sit on dedicated servers, but that is a claim about how each platform is hosted, not a promise of an isolated instance or database per firm. Whether the architecture is single-tenant or multi-tenant is not stated either way.

The one substantive data point comes from the privacy policy, which says information collected through the services is stored on servers in the United States, the European Union and other destinations. That confirms US and EU residency exists but stops short of letting you choose. The 2025 opening of a Limassol office under a separate Cypriot entity, FPFX Tech CY Ltd, suggests EU-facing operations are a real part of the business rather than an afterthought.

Marketed strictly as SaaS. Self-hosting and on-premise are never mentioned either way, so treat them as an open question rather than a refusal. The group says trading platforms sit on dedicated servers, which is a statement about platform hosting, not about an isolated instance or database per firm. No hosting regions, cloud provider, co-location or latency-to-venue detail is published anywhere.

Branding control is real but shallowly documented. The trader dashboard, checkout and admin portal carry the firm's logo, colours and domain, and FPFX describes the dashboard as branded or fully customised. What it does not say is whether all vendor branding disappears from the trader journey, how far theme control goes past colours, or whether mobile apps can be published under your own developer account.

Configurability at the rules layer is where the product is genuinely deep. The core promise is that if you can articulate how you want your programme to run, they will build it: plans, rules and metrics to your specification, plus bespoke development as a service. That is a stronger claim than most competitors make, and it is consistent with how the group sells custom plans on the white-label side.

The API story is the weak point. FPFX's own privacy policy contains a section covering customers using its API services, so an API exists and is supported commercially. But there is no public documentation, no stated protocol, no SDK list, no webhook reference and no sandbox environment mentioned anywhere. Every API field in this profile reads false because nothing is documented, not because the capability is missing.

Practical consequence: if your plan involves building your own front end, syncing to an internal data warehouse or wiring FPFX into existing internal systems, you cannot scope that work before a call. Ask for the API docs and a sandbox under NDA early, because the answer materially changes the build estimate.

FPFX's own privacy policy has a section covering customers using its API services, so an API exists, but there is no public documentation, no stated protocol, no SDK list and no sandbox. Every API flag here is false because nothing is documented, not because the capability is absent. Bespoke build is a core part of the pitch: plans, rules and metrics are made to the firm's specification.

FPFX publishes no price. There is no pricing page, no tier table, no setup fee, no per-account fee and no indicative range anywhere on the site. Every route through the site ends at a form offering a personalised demo or a pricing conversation. For a vendor of this scale, that is the single biggest transparency gap in the profile.

The only public numbers in the group belong to PropAccount, the white-label arm running on the same FPFX infrastructure. Those are: a one-time setup fee of $3,000, no monthly fee and no ongoing software subscription, in return for either 30% of gross sales under White Label I, or 50% of net revenue under White Label II and Custom Plans.

Those figures are recorded here as a reference point only. They buy a fundamentally different deal from a Tech Kit licence: under the white label, the group takes a share of your revenue. Licensing the Tech Kit means you run the firm yourself, and the commercial terms for that are not public.

What the headline excludes is also unpublished, with one exception: MetaTrader licensing is explicitly separate, from MetaQuotes, with substantial setup and ongoing fees. Assume market data, liquidity, payment gateway charges and per-verification KYC costs sit outside as well, and get each one confirmed in writing.

FPFX publishes no timeline for a Tech Kit licence. Migration is explicitly offered: the site invites firms to move across from their current provider, but names no incumbents and does not say whether trade history and trader records come with them. The group's white-label arm quotes 5-7 business days to launch; useful as a rough shape, not as the licence timeline.

There is no SLA in the public domain, and no SLA-shaped information either. No uptime percentage is committed, no status page exists, no incident history or post-mortems are published, no latency figure is quoted and service credits are never mentioned. For infrastructure carrying live funded accounts, that is the most serious documentation gap in this profile.

Support is claimed as round-the-clock, but the claim appears on the group's white-label pages rather than on fpfxtech.com, and nothing sits behind it: no first-response target, no priority definitions, no escalation path and no named account management. The only contact routes published are the support address and a web form. The privacy policy refers to customers opening support tickets, which is the sole evidence of a ticketing process.

Take three things into the call: the SLA schedule from the master agreement, 12 months of incident history with post-mortems, and a written definition of P1 with its response target and escalation route. If none of those exist in documented form, that is itself the answer.

Round-the-clock support is claimed on the group's own partner and company pages, not on fpfxtech.com, and no response-time target sits behind it. There is no status page, no incident history, no published uptime figure and no reference to service credits anywhere on the site or in the legals. The only public contact route is support@fpfxtech.com plus a web form; the privacy policy refers to support tickets, which is the sole evidence of a ticketing process.

Be explicit about this: no security certification is claimed anywhere. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no PCI DSS, no trust page, no penetration-testing statement, no bug bounty, no named auditor. Extensive searching of the site, the legals and the industry press turned up nothing. For a vendor whose platform holds trader identity documents, payment data and trading records across 150+ firms, an operator should treat this as a live diligence item rather than an oversight.

What is confirmed sits at the application layer and comes from the vendor's own product copy: admin users get role-based permissions, edit logs and multi-factor security. Those are real, useful controls and more than some competitors document. Encryption at rest and in transit, backup frequency, disaster-recovery objectives and SSO are all simply unaddressed; the false values in this profile mean unevidenced, not absent.

On data protection, FPFX Technologies LLC names itself as data controller for its own site and services. The privacy policy sets out lawful bases, EEA and UK data subject rights, the right to complain to a supervisory authority, and states that data is stored on servers in the United States, the European Union and other destinations. There is no published processor DPA for client firms, which is what a prop firm operating in the EU or UK would actually need.

On industry standards rather than infosec, FPFX joined The Prop Association as a founding member firm in 2025, with its CEO framing regulation as customer protection.

The scale claims are large and consistent, and every one of them is self-reported. The homepage states 150+ prop firms launched, $1B+ in challenges sold and 2M+ accounts created. In an interview, the CEO put it as roughly 150 of the industry's 200-plus firms running on the platform.

Group-level numbers are higher and measure something different. Parent company Game 7 claimed in March 2026 that its businesses had launched over 300 prop firms and serviced more than 2M users, a figure that folds in the PropAccount white-label book, itself reported at 110+ firms in August 2025. Treat the 150 as the FPFX Tech licence count and the 300 as the group total, and do not add them.

One further volume claim, from the CEO in April 2024: over $3 trillion in monthly volume traded through the technology.

No client firm is named as a customer. There are no case studies and no reference metrics. The homepage testimonials come from partners and industry outlets (PipFarm, YourBourse and Trade ATS) rather than firms running on the platform, and FPFX lists its own awards: 'Best Prop Trading Technology Provider' at the UF Awards 2025 and four categories at the FinanceFeeds Awards 2024. Two client relationships have ended in public disputes. FPFX terminated its licence agreement and all associated services with Funded Engineer in February 2024 after an internal audit, and in July 2025 it sued The Funded Trader and Easton Consulting in Palm Beach County, Florida, seeking $184,079.25 in unpaid invoices plus liquidated damages for an alleged breach of exclusivity. No outcome had been reported at the time of writing. Ask for three referenceable operators at your size and asset class.