Reviews

“Very fast customer support I really appreciate the help that Tony provided I faced an issue and IT support and Tony help me very quickly to start trading again.”

“Of all the reviews I have currently seen, why does none talk about payout... They only talk about good customer care and the like”

“7 days rules had 7 days, active rule, didnt meet by couple hours speak wiht the team pavel and tony. Very understanding. wiht no hassle.help me recover my account.”

“When ForTraders had a technical Issue and I Have got -1,5% of account drawn meanwhile I was on Break even. Chuan helped me to get this lose back. 5 stars for him and whole team FT”

“Response to Account Termination and Cancelled Performance Reward If you believed I had violated your rules, you should have informed me as soon as you detected the issue during the evaluation phases. Instead, no concern was raised until I became eligible for a payout and submitted my withdrawal request of 3207$. From my perspective, my account was allowed to continue through every stage of the evaluation without any warning or restriction. Only after I requested my performance reward was I informed of an alleged violation. This raises serious concerns about the fairness and timing of your decision. If your decision is based on an alleged breach, I request that you provide the evidence supporting your conclusion. Simply stating that multiple accounts accessed the platform from the same IP address does not, by itself, establish that . Many legitimate situations can result in the same IP address being used, including shared internet connections, offices, households, mobile networks, VPNs, or internet service providers using shared public IP addresses. I also question why this issue was not identified or communicated earlier. If your monitoring systems detected a violation, why was I allowed to continue trading and complete the evaluation process? Why was my account only terminated after I became eligible for a performance reward? Without providing supporting evidence or a reasonable explanation for the timing of your decision, it is difficult to view this process as transparent or fair. I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision or, at a minimum, provide the evidence and reasoning that led to this conclusion. If you are unwilling to do so, I believe withholding my performance reward without substantiating the alleged breach is unjustified.”

“Fast action Juan was so fast in attending in my concern. Kudos!”

“Transparent support, but unacceptable Master uncertainty and drawdown I contacted For Traders before purchasing a Crypto Fast PRO account. This review concerns my genuine pre-purchase support experience and the conditions their team confirmed. I have not traded a Challenge or Master Account and therefore cannot comment on execution or payouts. The support agents were helpful and provided several useful clarifications. Tony confirmed that the BTCUSD commission is $25 per lot for the complete round trip, and that manually placing the same personally developed trade across my own accounts is permitted. Unfortunately, two important conditions make the product unsuitable for my BTC strategy. First, For Traders could not guarantee the trading conditions of the payout-eligible Master Account. Support confirmed that BTC leverage, maximum risk per trade, margin requirements, maximum exposure and other trading conditions may be adjusted after the Challenge based on the trader's evaluation performance. This means someone could purchase and pass a Challenge advertised with 1:20 BTC leverage without knowing the minimum leverage or exposure that will apply to the Master Account. Second, support stated that a $100,000 account has an EOD trailing drawdown amount of only $2,500, producing an initial threshold of $97,500. At 1% total risk per trade, two full losses leave the account at $98,000 and a third full loss would breach the threshold. Even at 0.625% risk, four losses bring the account exactly to the threshold. A legitimate and profitable 1:2 risk-to-reward strategy can naturally experience several consecutive losses. In my opinion, a 2.5% trailing buffer is excessively restrictive. There is also a material inconsistency that requires clarification: the Crypto Fast PRO information previously indicated a 4% EOD trailing drawdown, while support stated that the fixed amount is $2,500, equal to 2.5% on a $100,000 account. The 35% consistency rule is not my main concern because consistent risk and four approximately equal profitable days should remain within that rule. I appreciate the professional support and the transparent answers, but I cannot purchase an evaluation when the eventual Master conditions are not guaranteed and the applicable drawdown information appears contradictory. I hope For Traders considers: Guaranteed minimum Master leverage and exposure conditions A larger or static maximum drawdown Consistent information across its website and support Clear rules concerning the required buffer after withdrawals If these conditions are improved or clarified, I would reconsider For Traders in the future.”

“All is quickly and clearly I had problems with Kyc verification but really nice guy Pavel helped me and all is clear now. Thank you for your help”

“Perfect customer service I didnt have so much time to trade last months, but I have won one challenge and got for free 25k challenge, but because I thought, that the login details would be active the whole and didnt read the rules properly I lost after 30 days the account. I tried to contact the clients service to maybe get some help but was expecting only explanation. But they made an exception for me and reactivate the account for me so i could use this challenge again, what I am really grateful for. And really aprecciate their fast and kind customer service. Thank you !”

“$6,535 Payout Denied Without Specific Evidence My experience with For Traders has been extremely disappointing. After completing my verification call, I waited around 12 days for my $6,535.78 payout. I was then accused of being part of a "reverse hedging group" and my accounts were terminated. I strongly dispute this allegation. I emailed them twice requesting specific evidence, including the trades, account comparisons, or timestamps supporting the accusation. My emails were ignored. Even after further follow-up, they refused to provide any trade-level evidence, stating that it was confidential. Denying a $6,535.78 payout while refusing to provide any specific evidence is extremely concerning. I cannot recommend For Traders based on my experience.”