An FTMO Futures customer has complained that purchasing an Account Reset resulted in what felt like a second charge during the same billing period because the trader’s monthly Evaluation subscription continued running normally.
The Oct. 4 Trustpilot reviewer said they paid to reset an FTMO Futures account but remained liable for the regular monthly subscription charge, characterizing the result as being charged twice in a single cycle.
FTMO’s published rules, however, show that the two payments are designed to be separate. Futures Evaluations operate as recurring monthly subscriptions, while an Account Reset is an optional additional purchase that allows a trader to restart sooner instead of waiting for the next renewal date.
Crucially, buying a Reset does not restart or postpone the subscription billing cycle.
That means the available evidence does not establish an unauthorized duplicate charge or billing error. The more interesting consumer question is whether traders understand before pressing the Reset button that they are purchasing an early restart rather than replacing their existing monthly subscription period.
FTMO Gives Failed Traders Two Ways to Restart
FTMO Futures uses a different payment structure from a conventional one-time prop-firm challenge.
According to FTMO’s Futures Trading Objectives and Rules, access to an Evaluation is billed monthly. The subscription remains active even if the trader breaches the account.
After a hard violation, a trader can essentially choose between two routes.
The first is to do nothing and wait. When the next monthly billing date arrives, FTMO charges the regular subscription fee and issues a fresh Evaluation account if the previous account was breached.
The second is to purchase an Account Reset immediately. That returns the Evaluation to its original simulated capital and starting conditions without forcing the trader to wait for the billing anniversary.
The important detail is that the Reset operates inside the existing subscription. FTMO explicitly states that applying one does not alter the monthly billing cycle and that the regular subscription fee will still be charged on its originally scheduled date.
In practical terms, the Reset buys time. It does not buy a new billing cycle.
A Reset Costs Almost as Much as Another Month
The economics help explain why the reviewer perceived the arrangement as a double charge.
FTMO currently offers Growth Evaluation subscriptions at $119, $169 and $229 per month depending on account size. Corresponding Reset fees are $109, $159 and $219.
Its Pro Evaluation subscriptions cost $139, $199 and $269 per month, while their Reset fees are $129, $189 and $259.
| Plan | Monthly Subscription | Reset Fee |
|---|---|---|
| Growth 50K | $119 | $109 |
| Growth 100K | $169 | $159 |
| Growth 150K | $229 | $219 |
| Pro 50K | $139 | $129 |
| Pro 100K | $199 | $189 |
| Pro 150K | $269 | $259 |
Every Reset is therefore only $10 cheaper than the corresponding monthly subscription. Depending on the plan, a Reset costs approximately 92% to 96% of the normal monthly charge.
So the reviewer’s claim that the Reset costs exactly the same as the subscription is not literally correct under FTMO’s current pricing. Economically, however, the difference is small.
A Growth 50K trader who pays $109 for a Reset shortly before a $119 renewal could spend $228 within a relatively short period. A Pro 150K trader in the same position could pay $259 for the Reset and then $269 at renewal.
Neither scenario represents two charges for the same product. But without a clear understanding of the billing mechanics, they can certainly feel that way to the customer.
The Complaint Does Not Show an Unauthorized Double Charge
That distinction matters when reporting customer complaints.
A Trustpilot post establishes what a reviewer says happened. It does not establish that a company improperly billed an account.
In this case, the underlying mechanism described by the customer is substantially consistent with FTMO’s published model. The firm says the Reset is a separate paid action and says repeatedly that the normal subscription remains active afterward.
There is no evidence in the surfaced material that FTMO charged two monthly subscription fees for the same period, that the Reset was purchased without authorization, or that the company promised the Reset would postpone the next renewal date.
Similar evidentiary distinctions have become increasingly important in prop trading. Dave Finances recently examined a QT Funded trader complaint against the firm’s published payout policy, where the useful question was not simply whether a customer was unhappy but whether the documented policy matched what allegedly happened.
Here, FTMO’s documentation largely matches the mechanics described in the complaint.
The More Difficult Question Is What the Reset Screen Communicates
That does not make the customer-experience issue disappear.
There is a difference between information being available somewhere in published rules and the economic consequence being obvious at the moment somebody makes a purchase.
A trader who has just failed an Evaluation is presented with a simple choice: stop trading until the next renewal or pay to restart immediately. The word “Reset” can intuitively sound like starting the account over, including its timing. Under FTMO’s model, it resets the trading conditions but not the subscription clock.
The public rules are explicit about that distinction. What cannot be established from those rules alone is how prominently the next renewal date and amount are displayed to a trader at the actual Reset checkout screen.
That is where this story becomes more interesting than an isolated one-star review.
Prop-firm products increasingly combine subscription periods, evaluation fees, resets, progression stages, simulated balances and payout rules. Small differences in terminology can materially change what a trader pays or receives.
A recent Funded Futures Family dispute raised a related question around whether traders clearly understood what happened to accumulated simulated profits when the firm moved them into a different account stage. In that case too, the important issue was not merely whether the company had contractual authority, but whether the financial consequence was sufficiently obvious to the trader.
Resets Are a Separate Revenue Event for FTMO
FTMO’s own affiliate structure removes any ambiguity about how the company treats the two transactions commercially.
Affiliates receive recurring commissions on monthly FTMO Futures Evaluation payments. They can also receive a separate commission every time a referred trader purchases an Account Reset.
At the Bronze affiliate level, for example, Futures subscription payments generate a 10% commission while Account Resets generate 5%. Higher levels increase both rates.
That does not suggest anything improper. It simply confirms that FTMO itself treats subscription renewals and Resets as two distinct monetized events rather than one charge replacing another.
The structure creates an obvious business incentive: failed Evaluations can continue generating revenue either through recurring subscriptions or through optional Resets purchased between billing dates.
That is common territory for the modern prop-trading model, where a large part of the customer relationship is determined not by live brokerage execution but by fees, simulated trading rules and advancement conditions.
Dave Finances has seen the same broader tension in disputes around Funding Pips’ mandatory Prime transfers. A product can operate exactly as its contractual rules permit while still generating backlash if traders believe the commercial effect differs from the way they initially understood the offer.
The Best Fix Would Be to Put the Next Charge Beside the Reset Price
This is ultimately a user-interface problem as much as a pricing problem.
FTMO already explains the billing mechanism in its public rules. But a trader should ideally not need to navigate a rules page to calculate the immediate cost of pressing Reset.
The clearest confirmation screen would show both numbers together: the Reset fee being paid now and the exact amount and date of the next monthly renewal, accompanied by a short warning that resetting the Evaluation does not change that date.
For example, a Growth 50K customer could see that the Reset costs $109 today while the existing $119 monthly subscription will still renew on its original date.
That would make the economics difficult to misunderstand.
The issue is particularly important because prop-firm disputes often emerge not from completely undocumented rules but from the gap between legal documentation and what traders think a product will do. A recent FundingPips account-termination complaint similarly demonstrated why the timing and visibility of rules can become almost as important as the existence of the rules themselves.
The FTMO Complaint Is Better Viewed as a Transparency Test
For now, there is no evidence that FTMO improperly charged the Oct. 4 reviewer twice for the same subscription period.
The published system says something narrower: a monthly Evaluation continues until it is passed or cancelled, and a trader who does not want to wait for the next renewal can separately pay almost another month’s fee to reset immediately.
That model may be perfectly understandable to someone who has studied the pricing rules. It may be less intuitive to a trader making a quick decision immediately after failing an account.
That is why the next useful evidence would be the Reset checkout itself rather than another negative review.
If the screen prominently shows that the existing subscription remains active, gives the next billing date and amount, and requires the trader to authorize the additional Reset fee with that information visible, the complaint becomes primarily dissatisfaction with a clearly disclosed pricing structure.
If that information is difficult to see at the point of purchase, FTMO has a product-transparency problem even if the underlying charge is permitted by its published rules.
The difference matters. This is not currently a story about proven double billing. It is a story about a prop-firm product where paying nearly another month’s subscription buys an immediate restart—but does not restart the clock.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape.