Blank web page!!! Where're the challenges?

please Devolop the system first.

Very good and so very nice

Very smooth transaction

Easy to access credentials. Perfect setup. Amazing job @ICMarkets

Super good broker

So far so good. Already loved the ic markets brand so makes sense to use ic funded as a prop firm. Ctrader makes things very easy. The rest is up to you. Will update how the 100k challange goes

Great experience. Only if they had a free start and pay when u pass program. That would have been great

i think honestyly that IC or IC markets has undergone a major upgrade and modernization,they have improved their servers infracstructure and customer service . In my opinion IC has consolidated in a solid and reliable platform for retail investments

Good offer for those not active since a long time

Awesome. Only struggling with funded account.

The company has existed for so long, they are transparent and a great support system, thru are so legitimate, professional and can be trusted.

The support was enthusiastic and excellent. I didn't receive service from Rise despite exchanging emails with them many times. Currently, IC Fund only offers payment through Rise, but when I contacted them, they were willing to pay me my profits via Crypto. This was timely and much-needed support. Worth a try.

Strong background, brilliant prop firm

SCAM
Payment Declined

I traded for 3 weeks on a live account after one withdrawal and my second withdrawal was declined. As a trader with 10 years of experience, I have never risked more than 1% per trade, max minimum 0.25%, but they have chosen to lie to their traders and deny them the right to withdraw without informing them of any violation during trading for risk or anything else, even though what I have done is to be blamed for your bad behavior when I see the reviews here and the comments of traders like me. You will never reach the level of fundednext and fundedpips, never with this behavior without reason. and finally I contacted support I wanted to show you for each trade opened with EA position size calculation but they didn't even respond. this was the email they received.
Dear Abdullah,

We have completed the review of your account 90014985.

During our review, we identified trading activity that shows signs of grid martingale-style behaviour. Specifically, the account showed repeated positions opened on the same instrument, in the same direction, with increased exposure as the market moved against the positions.

This type of behaviour may be considered high-risk and inconsistent with a stable and sustainable trading approach, as it relies on increasing exposure to recover losses rather than managing risk in a controlled manner.

As a result, your payout request has been declined and the account has been closed.

Examples identified include:
• Multiple positions opened on the same instrument within a short period
• Increased position sizing after losing or adverse market movement
• Repeated entries without a clear independent trade setup
• Exposure building in a grid-like or martingale-style structure
• Trading behaviour focused on recovering losses through larger or repeated positions

This decision has been made in accordance with our Terms & Conditions and is final unless new information can be provided.

Kind regards,
IC Funded Risk Team

I am extremely disappointed with my experience and believe traders should carefully review the drawdown rules before purchasing an account.

I had a $5,000 funded account with a maximum drawdown of $350. At one point, my account reached approximately $5,096 in profit. I later withdrew those profits, bringing my balance back to around $5,000.

After some losing trades, my account was breached even though I believed I was still operating within what I understood to be the maximum drawdown limits based on my current balance.

When I contacted support, I was informed that my account was still subject to a legacy drawdown model. According to support, the maximum drawdown continued to be calculated from the highest historical balance achieved ($5,096), even after those profits had been withdrawn. This meant that my drawdown floor remained elevated and my effective risk allowance was significantly reduced.

My concern is not the arithmetic itself. My concern is that this specific methodology was never clear to me.

To verify this, I reviewed the published rules and even asked the company's AI support system to identify the rule that authorized this calculation method.

The AI support response stated:

"There is no clause in our published rules that explicitly states that maximum drawdown stays anchored to a prior high-water mark after a withdrawal, or that withdrawn profits continue to be included in future drawdown calculations."

It further stated:

"Because your breach scenario is not explicitly defined in the written rules, I cannot point to a specific contractual clause that authorizes that exact methodology."

As a trader, that is very concerning.

If a rule can result in account termination, I believe that rule should be clearly and explicitly documented. In my case, neither the published rules nor the AI support system could identify a written clause describing the exact drawdown methodology that was ultimately used to breach my account.

I have requested a manual review and asked the company to provide the exact contractual clause supporting this calculation and evidence that it was clearly disclosed to traders.

My issue is not with losing trades. Trading involves risk, and I fully accept responsibility for my trading decisions. My issue is with transparency. If a firm's drawdown model continues to reference historical balances after profits have been withdrawn, I believe that should be clearly stated in the written rules so traders can make informed decisions and manage risk accordingly.

I hope the company reviews this matter fairly and provides a clear explanation supported by the written rules.

Very bed and scam they only deceiving traders
Keep save chose good firm

Ambiguous and lack of transparency in their processes. While citing breach of their forbidden practices which at times is very subjective to personal strategy that can be decided as breach of rules leading to an account closure due to personal interpretation from "risk review team" instead of facts. Even after providing thought and logic process, and strategy implementation. they still decided that it is to be terminated. Fair. Ultimately they hold the power and decision to close the account. But I've sought clarification on how to curate my strategy such that it doesn't flag or would not be flagged as such, but all I got was that they have decided that I was utilising a forbidden practice and as such account closure. No response to said queries. Despite this, I don't harbour any ill-will, would have been nice to have a fixed "determination" of said forbidden practices instead of just giving a broad general explanation of said rules. Because clearly even with proper risk maintenance, and strategy with respect to all the rules, it can still lead to account closure due to discretionary decision-making by their risk review team even if they claim proper investigation as well as decisions not being taken arbitrarily in spite of no clear breach of rules and proper risk adherence.
So for any potential customers,
As long as your strategy doesn't involve too much scalping that could potentially infringe on any of their forbidden practices in anyway such as HFT, tick scalping, layering/martingaling, YOLO bets, with proper risk adherence and low risk per trade you should be fine, probably.
To those who claim ICFUNDED is a scam:
I did get payouts, so no not a scam, just disappointed with the way my case was handled. They are not the most transparent and forthcoming with explanations at times. Although they have a really quick response time from their customer support team, no fault of theirs, where there is a disconnect between them and their risk review team.
Wish the team all the best at ICFunded.
Cheers