Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded 2026: Rules, Payouts, Drawdown & “BRIDGE” Coupons Compared

Quick answer: Blueberry Funded and QT Funded are directly comparable CFD prop firms because both currently offer one-step, two-step and instant-style routes, but their account engineering is very different. Blueberry Funded mixes wide static evaluation models with Instant Lite and Instant Elite, while QT Funded offers QT ONE, QT TWO, QT POWER, QT Instant and Buy Now Pay Later. The high-intent comparison is therefore Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded at the exact account level rather than one brand-level “winner.”

Coupon answer: Blueberry Funded coupon code “BRIDGE”, Blueberry Funded promo code “BRIDGE” and Blueberry Funded discount code “BRIDGE” currently refer to the same verified 35% relationship. QT Funded coupon code “BRIDGE” is currently 60% off. The coupon changes price only.

Featured-snippet answer: Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded in 2026 comes down to drawdown preference and payout rules. Blueberry Flex 1-Step uses a wide 12% static overall loss with a 12% target, while QT ONE uses a 6% target and 6% static maximum loss plus a trailing daily threshold and funded floating-loss rule. Blueberry Prime 2-Step uses 8%/6% with 4% daily and 10% static max; QT TWO uses 8%/5% with 4% fixed daily and 8% static max. Current BRIDGE discounts are 35% at Blueberry Funded and 60% at QT Funded.

Coupon verification: Prop Firm Bridge independently verified the BRIDGE discount stated in this article.

Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded at a Glance

This matchup already has active comparison search demand, which matters because the title mirrors a real buyer question rather than an invented pairing. The strongest editorial advantage is precision: many third-party pages flatten the firms into “80% vs 100% profit split” or “35% vs 60% discount,” while the actual account mechanics vary significantly by model.

Blueberry Funded’s current PFB record gives traders several distinct risk architectures: Flex 1-Step with a wide static overall buffer, Prime 2-Step with more traditional static two-phase rules, a promotional three-step with trailing behavior, Synthetic 2-Step, and two instant products. QT Funded splits its product family across QT ONE, TWO, POWER, Instant and BNPL, with its own mix of static maximum drawdown, trailing daily thresholds and funded floating-loss controls.

Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded Program Map

The natural one-step comparison is Flex 1-Step vs QT ONE. The natural two-step comparison is Prime 2-Step vs QT TWO and QT POWER. Instant Lite/Elite belong beside QT Instant, while QT’s Buy Now Pay Later is a separate financing-style entry product rather than a direct Blueberry equivalent.

Blueberry Flex 1-Step vs QT ONE

Blueberry Flex 1-Step currently uses a 12% target, 3% daily rule and 12% static maximum overall loss. QT ONE currently uses a 6% target, a 3% trailing daily threshold and 6% static maximum loss. The target is half as large at QT ONE, but the total static loss allowance is also half as large. That is the central trade-off.

Blueberry’s wide static 12% buffer can suit strategies that experience wider but controlled equity swings. QT ONE can suit lower-variance traders who value a lower target. Neither is automatically easier: the target-to-buffer relationship and the trader’s historical drawdown decide the practical difficulty.

QT ONE also includes a current funded floating-loss limit in the PFB record. That means a trader can remain inside the formal daily and maximum-loss numbers but still violate a funded exposure rule if open losses exceed the model threshold. Blueberry’s current one-step record instead emphasizes stage-specific news/weekend restrictions and a concentration-triggered profitable-day requirement after qualifying evaluation behavior.

Blueberry Prime 2-Step vs QT TWO and QT POWER

Blueberry Prime 2-Step currently uses 8%/6% targets, 4% daily loss and 10% static maximum loss. QT TWO currently uses 8%/5% with 4% fixed daily and 8% static maximum loss. QT POWER currently uses 6%/6% with 4% fixed daily and 8% static maximum loss.

Prime gives the trader a wider lifetime buffer than QT TWO/POWER, but asks for a higher second-phase target than QT TWO. QT POWER lowers Phase 1 to 6% but keeps Phase 2 at 6%. This makes the decision more nuanced than comparing fees alone.

Prime’s current profitable-day requirement is explicit for newer accounts: active days at a defined positive threshold are required during evaluation and funded reward cycles. QT TWO also uses minimum days and funded profitable-day requirements, while QT POWER uses four days per evaluation phase and payout cycle. Traders with low-frequency strategies should model how naturally those days occur.

Blueberry Instant Funding vs QT Instant

Blueberry Instant Lite currently uses a 2% daily limit and 4% equity-trailing maximum drawdown that locks at starting balance. Instant Elite has no daily-loss limit in the current record and a wider 10% equity-trailing maximum drawdown that also locks. QT Instant currently uses a 3% fixed daily limit, 6% trailing maximum drawdown and a current first-withdrawal growth requirement.

This is a classic instant-account trade-off. Instant Lite is cheaper and tighter. Instant Elite is wider but more expensive. QT Instant sits between them on headline drawdown while adding profitable-day and exposure conditions. The right comparison uses the strategy’s historical drawdown and how much open-floating risk it normally carries.

Static, Trailing and Floating-Loss Rules Compared

Blueberry’s main Flex and Prime evaluations currently use static overall-loss structures. QT ONE, TWO and POWER also use static maximum loss, but QT ONE adds a trailing daily threshold and funded floating-loss rule. QT Instant uses a trailing maximum drawdown. Blueberry Instant products also trail and then lock.

A trader who dislikes moving floors can focus on the static evaluation families. A trader buying instant access needs to understand path dependency. New highs can move the floor; withdrawals can shrink the cushion; open losses can trigger separate exposure rules even when closed balance looks healthy.

Static maximum loss does not make a model automatically lenient. QT TWO’s 8% static max is tighter than Blueberry Prime’s 10%. Blueberry Flex’s 12% static max is wide, but its 12% target means the trader can spend longer exposed to normal market variance before passing.

Trading-Day and Profitable-Day Requirements

Blueberry and QT both use day requirements, but the definitions are program specific. Prime currently requires active profitable days under the latest PFB record. QT TWO requires days in each phase and funded profitable days; QT Instant requires four profitable days of at least the current threshold before each payout cycle.

These rules are especially important for swing traders who can make most monthly return in two positions. A trader may hit a profit target but still need additional qualifying days. That should be planned before purchase rather than discovered after passing.

A practical research habit is to examine the last fifty strategy trades and count how many separate days meet the firm’s profitable-day definition. This converts a vague rule into an expected calendar delay. If the strategy historically generates only two qualifying days per month, a four-day cycle can materially slow withdrawals without changing the strategy’s actual profitability.

Payout Frequency and Profit Split

Blueberry’s current main models generally use 14-day payout cycles, with optional faster/on-demand structures on selected instant products. QT ONE currently advertises a four-trading-day payout rhythm, QT TWO and POWER use 14-day cycles, and QT Instant uses its own four-day profitable-cycle structure after conditions are met.

Profit split should be compared with payout eligibility. A higher headline split has less practical value if a strategy struggles with the qualifying-day, consistency or floating-loss conditions required to request the payout.

Traders should also distinguish first payout from recurring payout. An account can advertise a four-day cycle while still requiring a minimum profit, qualifying days or a buffer before the first request. The economic question is “how many days until my strategy can realistically produce an eligible withdrawal?” rather than “what is the shortest number on the product page?”

News, Weekend Holding and EA Rules

Blueberry’s current program records vary by model: Flex currently restricts news and weekend holding, while Prime allows weekend holding but restricts news; EAs are generally allowed on several evaluation/instant products. QT records currently allow news trading on major models, while weekend/EA fields are more product specific and need the live agreement.

Traders whose strategy depends on macro releases or weekend swing exposure should eliminate incompatible programs before comparing price. A larger coupon cannot compensate for a rule that removes the strategy’s best setups.

Prices and “BRIDGE” Coupon Savings

Blueberry Funded “BRIDGE” currently gives 35% off. QT Funded “BRIDGE” currently gives 60% off. The price after coupon is only one part of true cost because repeated failed attempts can dominate the original fee.

Live checkout is authoritative. This table uses current stored base prices and simple percentage math. If a product has a nonstandard $5 BNPL entry or a temporary free promotion, the live order flow should be treated separately from a normal percentage-discount calculation.

Program-by-Program Deep Dive

Blueberry Funded — Flex 1-Step

Program snapshot: Flex 1-Step is currently a One Step structure with a profit-target field of 12%, daily-loss rule of 3%, maximum-loss rule of 12%, Daily loss from higher of opening balance/equity, Static maximum overall loss drawdown, 85 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is None to pass; if one evaluation trade idea produced more than 60% of the target, 4 profitable days are required before each funded payout.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 3% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $3,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a static element in the current overall-loss structure, which is easier to map because the lifetime floor does not continuously ratchet upward with each new high. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is None to pass; if one evaluation trade idea produced more than 60% of the target, 4 profitable days are required before each funded payout. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 85. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as restricted, and EA use as allowed. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $105, $10,000 at $155, $25,000 at $330, $50,000 at $490, $100,000 at $835. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $330; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $115.5. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Blueberry Funded — Prime 2-Step

Program snapshot: Prime 2-Step is currently a Two Step structure with a profit-target field of 8% / 6%, daily-loss rule of 4%, maximum-loss rule of 10%, Daily loss from higher of opening balance/equity, Static maximum overall loss drawdown, 80 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is 3 active 0.5%-profit days per evaluation phase and 3 per funded reward cycle for accounts purchased from 17 August 2026.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 4% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $4,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a static element in the current overall-loss structure, which is easier to map because the lifetime floor does not continuously ratchet upward with each new high. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 3 active 0.5%-profit days per evaluation phase and 3 per funded reward cycle for accounts purchased from 17 August 2026. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 80. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as allowed, and EA use as allowed. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $2,500 at $37, $5,000 at $69, $10,000 at $112, $25,000 at $206, $50,000 at $406, $100,000 at $812, $200,000 at $1,462. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $206; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $72.1. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Blueberry Funded — 3-Step Promotion

Program snapshot: 3-Step Promotion is currently a Three Step structure with a profit-target field of 6% / 6% / 6%, daily-loss rule of 3%, maximum-loss rule of 5%, Previous-end-of-day-equity trailing daily loss, Intraday equity trailing maximum loss drawdown, 80 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is No minimum evaluation days; 5 active 0.5%-profit days per funded payout.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 3% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $3,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is No minimum evaluation days; 5 active 0.5%-profit days per funded payout. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 80. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as allowed, and EA use as allowed. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at —, $10,000 at —, $25,000 at —, $50,000 at —, $100,000 at —, $200,000 at —. At the representative $50,000 tier, the stored base fee is —; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by —. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Blueberry Funded — Synthetic 2-Step

Program snapshot: Synthetic 2-Step is currently a Synthetic structure with a profit-target field of 10% / 5%, daily-loss rule of 4%, maximum-loss rule of 10%, Daily loss from higher of prior-day equity/balance, Static maximum overall loss drawdown, 80 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is 3 active days per evaluation phase; 3 active 0.5%-profit days per payout.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 4% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $4,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a static element in the current overall-loss structure, which is easier to map because the lifetime floor does not continuously ratchet upward with each new high. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 3 active days per evaluation phase; 3 active 0.5%-profit days per payout. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 80. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as allowed, and EA use as restricted. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $25, $10,000 at $50, $25,000 at $115, $50,000 at $225, $100,000 at $450. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $115; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $40.25. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Blueberry Funded — Instant Lite

Program snapshot: Instant Lite is currently a Instant Funding structure with a profit-target field of None, daily-loss rule of 2%, maximum-loss rule of 4%, Daily loss limit, Equity trailing maximum drawdown that locks at starting balance drawdown, 80 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days; optional on-demand add-on. The current minimum-day condition is None for accounts purchased on or after 17 August 2026.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 2% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $2,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is None for accounts purchased on or after 17 August 2026. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days; optional on-demand add-on and the recorded profit-share structure is 80. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as allowed, and EA use as allowed. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $1,250 at $37.04, $2,500 at $55.56, $5,000 at $83.33, $10,000 at $125, $25,000 at $187.5, $50,000 at $375, $100,000 at $750. At the representative $10,000 tier, the stored base fee is $125; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $43.75. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Blueberry Funded — Instant Elite

Program snapshot: Instant Elite is currently a Instant Funding structure with a profit-target field of None, daily-loss rule of None, maximum-loss rule of 10%, No daily drawdown, Equity trailing maximum drawdown that locks at starting balance drawdown, 80 profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days; optional 7-day or on-demand add-ons. The current minimum-day condition is 5 active 0.5%-profit days per payout; optional add-on reduces this to 3.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: This model does not use a simple daily-loss percentage in the same way as the other programs. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 5 active 0.5%-profit days per payout; optional add-on reduces this to 3. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days; optional 7-day or on-demand add-ons and the recorded profit-share structure is 80. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as restricted, weekend holding as allowed, and EA use as allowed. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $2,500 at $100, $5,000 at $200, $10,000 at $400, $25,000 at $800, $50,000 at $1,500, $100,000 at $2,800. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $800; a 35% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $280. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

QT Funded — QT ONE

Program snapshot: QT ONE is currently a One Step structure with a profit-target field of 6%, daily-loss rule of 3% trailing daily threshold based on the higher previous closing balance or equity, maximum-loss rule of 6% static, Trailing daily threshold, Static maximum drawdown, 1% funded floating-loss limit drawdown, 70% profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 4 trading days. The current minimum-day condition is No minimum in evaluation; 4 minimum days per funded payout cycle.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 3% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $3,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is No minimum in evaluation; 4 minimum days per funded payout cycle. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 4 trading days and the recorded profit-share structure is 70%. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as allowed, weekend holding as program-specific, and EA use as program-specific. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $110, $10,000 at $190, $25,000 at $350, $50,000 at $625, $100,000 at $1,000. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $350; a 60% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $210. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

QT Funded — QT TWO

Program snapshot: QT TWO is currently a Two Step structure with a profit-target field of Phase 1: 8%; Phase 2: 5%, daily-loss rule of 4% fixed from the starting balance, maximum-loss rule of 8% static, Fixed daily drawdown, Static maximum drawdown, 1% funded floating-loss rule drawdown, 80% profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is 4 days in each evaluation phase; 4 days with at least 0.5% profit per funded payout cycle.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 4% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $4,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a static element in the current overall-loss structure, which is easier to map because the lifetime floor does not continuously ratchet upward with each new high. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 4 days in each evaluation phase; 4 days with at least 0.5% profit per funded payout cycle. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 80%. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as program-specific, weekend holding as program-specific, and EA use as program-specific. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $10,000 at $70, $25,000 at $140, $50,000 at $275, $100,000 at $550, $200,000 at $1,000. At the representative $50,000 tier, the stored base fee is $275; a 60% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $165. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

QT Funded — QT POWER

Program snapshot: QT POWER is currently a Two Step structure with a profit-target field of Phase 1: 6%; Phase 2: 6%, daily-loss rule of 4% fixed from the initial balance, maximum-loss rule of 8% static, Fixed daily drawdown, Static maximum drawdown drawdown, 80% profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days for purchases from 11 August 2026 onward. The current minimum-day condition is 4 days per evaluation phase; 4 minimum days per funded payout cycle.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 4% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $4,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a static element in the current overall-loss structure, which is easier to map because the lifetime floor does not continuously ratchet upward with each new high. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 4 days per evaluation phase; 4 minimum days per funded payout cycle. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days for purchases from 11 August 2026 onward and the recorded profit-share structure is 80%. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as allowed, weekend holding as program-specific, and EA use as program-specific. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $35, $10,000 at $60, $25,000 at $125, $50,000 at $237, $100,000 at $475. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $125; a 60% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $75. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

QT Funded — QT Instant

Program snapshot: QT Instant is currently a Instant Funding structure with a profit-target field of No evaluation; reach 8% before the first 5% withdrawal, daily-loss rule of 3% fixed from the starting account balance, maximum-loss rule of 6% trailing from the highest recorded balance or floating equity, Fixed daily drawdown, Trailing maximum drawdown, 1% per-instrument exposure limit drawdown, 100% under the current plan conditions profit-share structure and payout timing of Every completed 4-day cycle after all conditions are met. The current minimum-day condition is 4 profitable days of at least 1% each.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 3% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $3,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is 4 profitable days of at least 1% each. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every completed 4-day cycle after all conditions are met and the recorded profit-share structure is 100% under the current plan conditions. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as allowed, weekend holding as program-specific, and EA use as program-specific. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $75, $10,000 at $125, $25,000 at $230, $50,000 at $375, $100,000 at $750. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $230; a 60% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $138. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

QT Funded — Buy Now Pay Later

Program snapshot: Buy Now Pay Later is currently a Buy Now Pay Later structure with a profit-target field of 6%, daily-loss rule of 3% trailing, maximum-loss rule of 6% trailing, Trailing daily drawdown, Trailing maximum drawdown, 2% floating-loss limit drawdown, 80% profit-share structure and payout timing of Every 14 days. The current minimum-day condition is No minimum in evaluation; 5 minimum funded days per payout.

Target versus loss buffer: The exact profit target shown in the program table above must be compared with that program’s daily-loss and maximum-loss rules rather than converted into one combined percentage. Multi-phase targets remain separate phase targets. The maximum-loss rule is an outer breach boundary, not a recommended amount to risk.

Daily-risk interpretation: A 3% daily rule on $100,000 corresponds to $3,000 in simple percentage terms. A personal daily stop should sit materially inside that line, because open losses, spreads, slippage or a platform reset calculation can consume room faster than a trader expects.

Drawdown behavior: This account contains a trailing element, so sequence risk matters. New highs can raise the loss floor, and later giveback or withdrawals can reduce remaining room. The trader should write the active floor down before each session instead of relying on memory.

Minimum-day logic: The current requirement is No minimum in evaluation; 5 minimum funded days per payout. A minimum trading day, active day and profitable day are not the same concept. If the numerical target is reached early, the remaining day requirement should be completed through ordinary qualified setups at normal or reduced risk rather than artificial high-risk activity.

Payout economics: Current payout timing is Every 14 days and the recorded profit-share structure is 80%. The relevant metric is expected withdrawable value after all eligibility conditions, not the largest possible headline split. A smaller split on a cycle the strategy can satisfy naturally can be more useful than a larger split attached to restrictive conditions.

Permissions: Current PFB data records news trading as allowed, weekend holding as program-specific, and EA use as program-specific. Those labels summarize the current record; the exact agreement remains authoritative.

Price context: Current stored base prices are $5,000 at $5, $10,000 at $5, $25,000 at $5, $50,000 at $5, $100,000 at $5. At the representative $25,000 tier, the stored base fee is $5; a 60% BRIDGE calculation would reduce it by $3. The code reduces price only; it does not alter targets, drawdown, qualifying days or payout rules.

Failure-cost logic: The true economic cost is not only the first challenge fee. If a trader buys the same account three times because the risk structure conflicts with the strategy, the relevant cost is roughly three purchase fees minus any applicable discounts, plus the opportunity cost of the failed trading periods. A cheaper account can therefore be more expensive over time.

Who this structure fits: Compare this program against the closest structural alternative at the other firm, not against the cheapest product. A static two-step should be compared with a static two-step; an instant trailing account should be compared with an instant trailing account where possible. That creates a fairer price-versus-risk decision.

Account-Size Risk Math

$5,000 nominal account

At $5,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $100, 3% equals $150, 4% equals $200, 6% maximum loss equals $300, 8% equals $400, 10% equals $500 and 12% equals $600. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $25. At 0.25%, it is $12.5. A personal 1% daily stop equals $50. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $5,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

$10,000 nominal account

At $10,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $200, 3% equals $300, 4% equals $400, 6% maximum loss equals $600, 8% equals $800, 10% equals $1,000 and 12% equals $1,200. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $50. At 0.25%, it is $25. A personal 1% daily stop equals $100. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $10,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

$25,000 nominal account

At $25,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $500, 3% equals $750, 4% equals $1,000, 6% maximum loss equals $1,500, 8% equals $2,000, 10% equals $2,500 and 12% equals $3,000. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $125. At 0.25%, it is $62.5. A personal 1% daily stop equals $250. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $25,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

$50,000 nominal account

At $50,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $1,000, 3% equals $1,500, 4% equals $2,000, 6% maximum loss equals $3,000, 8% equals $4,000, 10% equals $5,000 and 12% equals $6,000. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $250. At 0.25%, it is $125. A personal 1% daily stop equals $500. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $50,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

$100,000 nominal account

At $100,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $2,000, 3% equals $3,000, 4% equals $4,000, 6% maximum loss equals $6,000, 8% equals $8,000, 10% equals $10,000 and 12% equals $12,000. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $500. At 0.25%, it is $250. A personal 1% daily stop equals $1,000. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $100,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

$200,000 nominal account

At $200,000, a 2% daily boundary equals $4,000, 3% equals $6,000, 4% equals $8,000, 6% maximum loss equals $12,000, 8% equals $16,000, 10% equals $20,000 and 12% equals $24,000. This illustrates how much the account’s real risk resource can differ even when the nominal balance is identical.

At 0.5% risk per trade, one loss is $1,000. At 0.25%, it is $500. A personal 1% daily stop equals $2,000. The personal limit should normally sit well inside the prop-firm boundary.

A trader comparing $200,000 accounts should also calculate challenge fee as a percentage of maximum allowed loss rather than only as a percentage of nominal balance. That produces a better sense of cost relative to the actual risk resource.

True Cost and Repeat-Attempt Model

A challenge fee is not the full cost if the trader repeats the same model. Suppose an account costs $300 after discount and the strategy has a 50% probability of passing under disciplined risk. Two attempts cost $600, three cost $900, before any opportunity cost. A nominally more expensive account that fits the strategy better can have a lower expected cost if it materially improves survival.

For static accounts, true cost should include how much usable loss room the fee buys. For trailing accounts, the calculation should include path dependency because the usable buffer after profits can shrink. For instant accounts, true cost should also include any lower profit split or payout conditions that affect how quickly the original purchase cost can be recovered.

Coupon codes are valuable because they reduce every attempt’s purchase cost, but they should not be used to justify a structurally poor model. The largest sales conversion usually comes from helping the trader choose the right account first, then showing the verified saving clearly at checkout.

Trader-Style Scenarios

Low-variance one-step trader

QT ONE’s lower target can be attractive if the 6% static maximum and funded floating-loss controls fit the strategy.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Wide-buffer one-step trader

Blueberry Flex offers a wider 12% static maximum but asks for a 12% target.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Traditional two-step trader

Compare Prime with QT TWO first because both are static, use a 4% daily limit and start Phase 1 at 8%.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Lower-target two-step trader

QT POWER reduces Phase 1 to 6% but keeps an 8% static maximum loss.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Instant trader who wants more room

Blueberry Instant Elite currently offers a wider headline maximum loss than Instant Lite, at a higher purchase cost.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader who wants frequent payouts

QT ONE’s current four-day payout rhythm is relevant, but qualifying-day and funded floating-loss rules still matter.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

News trader

QT programs are generally more permissive in the current records; Blueberry main CFD models currently restrict news trading.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Weekend swing trader

Blueberry Prime/Instant can permit weekend holding, while exact QT weekend conditions should be confirmed by model.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

EA trader

Blueberry permits EAs on several models; QT model-specific automation permissions should be checked before purchase.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Discount-focused trader

QT’s 60% headline discount is larger than Blueberry’s 35%, but final cost and account survival depend on base fee and rule fit.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader with large floating baskets

Pay special attention to QT funded floating-loss restrictions and to trailing floors on instant accounts.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader who wants the simplest lifetime floor

Focus on the static evaluation products and compare daily-loss methodology next.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader who frequently withdraws profits

Model how a withdrawal changes any trailing floor or locked buffer before requesting the maximum available amount.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader buying a larger account for fee efficiency

Check whether the larger dollar swings remain psychologically comfortable at the same percentage risk.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

Trader using a purchased EA

Verify current EA permission on the exact account before purchase; do not infer from another model at the same firm.

Record the answer using the exact account name and funded stage. This keeps the decision connected to the rule that actually changes the strategy instead of to the firm logo or coupon percentage.

How to Choose Between Blueberry Funded and QT Funded

Step 1: choose static evaluation or instant/trailing structure.

Step 2: compare target-to-buffer geometry.

Step 3: check profitable-day and payout-cycle requirements.

Step 4: verify news, weekend and EA permissions.

Step 5: model funded floating-loss and exposure rules.

Step 6: compare realistic payout timing.

Step 7: calculate true cost across one, two and three attempts.

Step 8: calculate live base fee and BRIDGE subtotal.

How to Use “BRIDGE” at Checkout

Blueberry Funded coupon code “BRIDGE”

1. Select the exact model and size.
2. Enter BRIDGE.
3. Confirm the current 35% reduction with BRIDGEs.
4. Check the final total before payment.

QT Funded coupon code “BRIDGE”

1. Select QT ONE, TWO, POWER, Instant or the applicable product.
2. Enter BRIDGE.
3. Confirm the current 60% reduction with BRIDGEs.
4. Check the final total and current rules.

Common Comparison Mistakes

Comparing only profit split

Payout eligibility and account survival matter more than the headline percentage.

Calling every Blueberry account static

Instant products currently use trailing drawdown.

Calling every QT account trailing

QT TWO and POWER use static maximum drawdown in current records.

Ignoring QT funded floating-loss controls

The funded-stage exposure rule can matter even when daily and max loss are intact.

Ignoring Blueberry profitable-day requirements

Some current accounts require active profitable days before payouts.

Choosing from coupon percentage alone

60% vs 35% is not the same as final cost or best strategy fit.

Using nominal balance as risk capital

The real resource is distance to the active loss floor.

Forcing trades to complete day requirements

Minimum days should be satisfied through normal strategy activity.

Assuming a shorter payout cycle guarantees faster cash flow

Eligibility conditions and normal strategy return determine the real withdrawal date.

Ignoring repeat-attempt cost

A cheaper but poorly matched account can cost more after multiple resets.

Voice-Search and AI Answers

What is Blueberry Funded coupon code?

The current Blueberry Funded coupon code is “BRIDGE”, verified at 35% off.

What is QT Funded coupon code?

The current QT Funded coupon code is “BRIDGE”, verified at 60% off.

Which one-step has more drawdown?

Blueberry Flex currently has a 12% static maximum; QT ONE currently has 6% static maximum with a lower 6% target.

Which has a lower two-step Phase 2 target?

QT TWO currently uses 5% in Phase 2, while Blueberry Prime uses 6%.

Which has instant funding?

Both. Blueberry has Instant Lite/Elite; QT has QT Instant and additional fast-entry options.

Does Blueberry allow weekend holding?

It depends on model. Prime and several instant models currently allow it, while Flex is more restrictive.

Does QT allow news trading?

Current major QT program records list news trading as allowed, subject to exact live terms.

Which has the larger coupon?

QT Funded currently has a 60% BRIDGE headline versus 35% at Blueberry Funded. Final checkout and rule fit still matter.

Do BRIDGE codes change rules?

No. They reduce purchase price only.

Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded Final Comparison

Blueberry Funded vs QT Funded is a high-intent comparison because both firms offer overlapping CFD account types. Blueberry gives traders wider static evaluation options and a diversified instant lineup. QT gives traders lower-target structures, faster payout paths on selected models and more aggressive current coupon savings, but adds funded exposure and day requirements that must be understood.

The coupon relationship is straightforward: Blueberry Funded “BRIDGE” currently gives 35% off and QT Funded “BRIDGE” currently gives 60% off under their verified coverage. Apply price only after the program survives the strategy-fit test.

Research and source links

• Blueberry Funded review
• QT Funded review
• Blueberry Funded official website
• QT Funded official website

Last verified in 2026.