Upcomers 

Le seul truc qui me dérange c'est la règle des deux minutes une minute serait tellement mieux

support impeccable merci a votre équipe

Llevo un mes con esta empresa y la verdad es una estafa en mi cuenta bancaria hace que se consuma dinero. y me frusto totalmente.
tuve que eliminar mi cuenta bancaria tarjeta etc. para no me siguiera consumiendo.

Thiefs! I made then money several times and they shot me down claiming that i beach the rules! On my first 25k account i left them 700 profit and now they close my account and i still made them 1000 dollars plus "comisions". I dont know who the f gave them 5 stars cuz they always make a ton of money from stupid people!!! I have pics to prove everything i said!!!!

So far so good, I'm on instant 500k account, though I have not reached payout point,...but have not detected any problem with upcomers. I'm trading through ctrader platform, the dashboard where I can monitor my trading is superb, I like it. The support I'm getting certainly awesome.hopefully many traders join this upcomer fast rising prop firm❤️

My second review here: Since my partial payout,  I have stopped trading with Upcomers even though my account is active I decide I will let it lapse. Upcomers did a trade count and paid me 275USD of the 900USD that I was initially entitled to. They claim that it is classified under one-sided bets. Other prop firms call it trend following.  The remaining 752.50USD was also conveniently deducted. 

Out of the blue, the Brand department contacted me and told me initially that it is only fair that the remaining 752.50USD  should remain as a buffer in my account.  Then the exchange morphed to a 300USD cash payment in exchange that I would agree with terms that will not disparage them.

To me, this asking is just out of line with the subpar work practices of Upcomers and certainly not the correct way to deal with an issue .  When a company has a string of negative reviews already, it continues on its defensive  mode and attempts to mop up the mess by getting customers to take down bad reviews instead of correcting its work practices.  This 300USD cash payment is unacceptable as it is taken from my payout to pay me to take down a negative review. They adopted a subtle way of requesting  and I even have to get them to "show hand" when they talk about the cash payment because I know there is no such thing as free lunch in this world.

Upcomers, your payout structure is already playing to your tune and locking up the money that traders deserve to receive. And yet, you are still having a problem paying the 90% split by finding all kind of reasons in your playbook to nail traders for rule violations. Clearly, there are some rules that are subjective, open to interpretation and used broadly to cut payouts.

If your business is hit by poor sales, the issue lies in your work ethnics; and not because there are too many profitable traders. Sure, you bang on the fact that you make money through resets, multiple purchases and failures but it is also fair you pay people who know how to trade and pay them fairly. Making attempts to buyback reviews will not help your business but amplify how you try to sweep things under the rug. You have just told me that I made the right decision to stay away because I simply don't agree with your work system.

Response: When a customer stops trading your account, it already tells you their decision. Which part of it that you don't understand?! When a consumer puts out a review here, he wants to share his experience to the truest. Why would he even want to take it down voluntarily?

Like you, we traders also use our hard-earned money to make purchases and hope to multiply our investments through our time and efforts. If we know the outcome is going to be like this, crossing paths with this company is definitely not a choice at all!

I have now completed three separate evaluations with Upcomers, and in each case I reached funded/payout stages but experienced similar outcomes where payouts were denied. Account 596381 "PASSED"
12 trades.
Profit: $228.67.
Payout denied solely for "Tick Scalping."
No mention of one-sided trading.

Account 598531 "PASSED"
6 counted trades.
Profit: $259.
Payout denied for One-Sided Bets and Tick Scalping.

Account 598476 "PASSED"
18 trades.
Profit: $576.70.
Payout denied for One-Sided Bets, Quick Strike, Tick Scalping, and Position Stacking. From a trading perspective, their rules appear internally contradictory.
Consider ULTRANOVA:
1-hour challenge
2% target
Full payout after one session

To hit a meaningful target in one hour, traders are naturally incentivized to:

Trade actively
Focus on the current strongest directional bias for the window of time under evaluation
Scale in when conviction increases
Capture short-term moves

Yet the violations they cite seem to punish exactly those behaviors.

This creates what risk managers call a "hidden optimization problem".

The visible rules tell you to maximize efficiency.

The invisible rules punish the methods most serious traders would use to achieve that efficiency.

Across all three cases, my core concern is not about trading rules themselves, but about how those rules are applied during the payout stage. During trading, I was never informed of any violations in real time, and my accounts were allowed to continue operating normally. However, at the point of payout, my results were re-evaluated and classified under multiple discretionary categories such as “one-sided trading,” “tick scalping,” and “Quick Strike Method” and "Position Stacking".

What makes this difficult to assess as a trader is that several of these classifications do not have clearly defined thresholds or publicly verifiable criteria. They do not provide in detail trade-level evidence and breakdowns of the specific entries that triggered these classifications.
In my experience across all three evaluations, the payout outcome was not strictly a binary application of predefined rules, but rather a broader subjective interpretive review of trading behavior after profits were generated. This led to payout denials even when I was actively trading within what I understood to be the published risk parameters that were marketed under "rules" on their checkout page. The checkout page prominently advertised:
1-hour payout eligibility ("Every Dollar Earned. Paid in Full")
99% profit split
2% profit target
3% max overall loss
No minimum trading days
Weekend & overnight holding allowed
1-hour time limit

What I do not see is any visible mention of:
One-Sided Bets
Tick Scalping
Quick Strike
Position Stacking
A link to prohibited strategy definitions page
A warning that passing the dashboard metrics does not guarantee payout approval
That distinction is important.

I am not claiming that prohibited trading strategy rules should not exist or that firms should not conduct risk reviews. However, I do believe that when traders are being evaluated after successfully meeting profit targets, there should be clear, explicit mention of specific trading behavior that would reliably qualify for payout at the checkout page where their rules were published.

Based on my experience across my three passed evaluations, I would advise other traders to carefully consider the payout review process and ensure they fully understand how post-profit assessments are conducted before committing significant time or capital.

I am extremely disappointed with Upcomers' service. Despite my account showing profits during the review process, the company refused to allow withdrawals, ultimately freezing my account with vague reasons such as "lack of strategy" and "impulsive trading." This gives the impression that they don't care about the quality of my trades and are simply making excuses not to pay profits. The entire process lacked transparency and fairness. Such treatment is completely unacceptable for traders who invest significant time and money.

This is not my first time participating in a challenge; I previously attempted a $100,000 challenge and successfully withdrew a few hundred dollars. However, this time, using the same strategy to challenge for $1 million, they refused withdrawals totaling over $9,000 with various flimsy excuses. It's clear that the company uses low withdrawal limits as bait to lure users into purchasing expensive challenges, ultimately defrauding them of their money and time by preventing withdrawals.

Support took about 20 hours, but they immediately told me that there are some technical issues and they compensated it eith another account.
No payouts on Upcomers so this is a review on the support part.

I have 1 account with Upcomers. so far my experience has been very positive. The registration process was nice and smooth. I had questions before I bought the account and support team has been awesome. They answered all my questions and then some. They have been very quick to response and helpful as well. They have been transparent and I really appreciate the service. I am looking forward to continue my journey with them and will update when payout is processed.

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich fordere hiermit die sofortige Auszahlung meines Gewinns in Höhe von 9.800 Euro. Diese Firma ist ein Betrug, und ich habe keinerlei Verpflichtungen, zusätzliche Zahlungen zu leisten. Das Angebot der Firma, ein Konto von 250 oder 300 Euro zu zahlen, ist unberechtigt. Ich bestehe darauf, dass mir umgehend mein vollständiger Gewinn ausgezahlt wird.“

I have been dealing with this platform for over 6 months. At first, everything seemed normal — their relatively low prices and promotions drew me in. After purchasing no fewer than 55 accounts from them, I never took the time to properly evaluate their performance.
My last purchase was a $100,000 account. The rules were clear: 6% daily loss limit, 10% total loss from the highest balance.
I proceeded with my normal trading — all positions entered at 0.10 lot size on Gold. On 18.6.26, my total stop loss across all open trades was set at $4,800. The account balance was $97,638, meaning the allowed daily drawdown was approximately $5,858 — so there was absolutely no issue.
At 19:45, I was shocked to find that all positions had been closed and the protection mode was activated. When I calculated my total loss, it did not exceed $4,858 — well within the allowed limit of $5,858 for that day.
When I submitted documented proof from their own platform — including all commissions — the total loss was still within the permitted limit and no violation had occurred.
Their response was that their internal system detected a breach — which in fact never happened.
On top of that, there was a clear and significant price slippage on their end.
All evidence will be attached.
My advice: stay away from them like fire.

I generated +$29,302 in 14 days on a $200k funded account. Professional risk management throughout:

Max drawdown: 2.26%
Profit Factor: 2.37
Counter-trend strategy 85% shorting uptrending indices

They reset my account. No payout.
The findings
Tick Scalping: 9 trades, $1,495 profit. I accepted this immediately. Their own compliance team called the fix "straightforward." A proportionate penalty would be forfeiting $1,495. Instead, $29,302 was wiped. That is a 20x disproportionate punishment for a 5% technical infraction.
One Sided Bets: No published threshold. Not 60%. Not 70%. Not 80%. Nothing. When I challenged this, their compliance team confirmed in writing: the rule has no measurable definition and is evaluated "holistically" — meaning subjectively, after your result is known.
What happened when I disputed it:
Their compliance team agreed my counter-trend argument was "well made." They confirmed my metrics "reflect genuine ability." They said my proportionality argument was "reasonable commercial framing." They did not argue against a single substantive point I raised.
Then they kept the money anyway.

The pattern worth noting:
A prop firm that applies unenforceable rules with no objective threshold, validated by their own compliance team as having no measurable standard, consistently produces one outcome: profitable traders don't get paid. This is intentional design!

My advice to anyone considering Upcomers:
Stay away.

I am publishing this not out of anger. Because other traders deserve the full picture before they fund.

Mi sono rivolto a questa Prop Firm più volte, sono arrivato ad essere PROFITTEVOLE E NON MI HANNO PAGATO…. Ho continuato pensando fossero in buona fede e dovessi in fine solo rispettare meglio le loro regole… Ma ormai NON CI CREDO PIU’… DOPO L’ULTIMA ESPERIENZA CAPISCO CHE C’E’ UN PIANO: APPIGLIARSI A QUALSIASI PRETESTO PER NON PAGARE!!!!
Riporto la mia ultima email a seguito delle loro contestazioni dove per negarmi il payout richiesto fanno riferimento perfino a conti e richieste precedenti, ove ciò non aveva alcun senso perche’ ogni conto ha storia e richiesta specifica che non può anche materialmente essere collegata ad altro. Venendo quindi a ciò che miseramente rimane: “ Riferimento conto: 576053. Periodo di tempo: 03/06/2026 15:22 UTC - 16/06/2026 14:43 UTC . Numero totale di operazioni eseguite: 64. Risultato netto: +$5.413,44 . Tick Scalping: OVVIAMENTE FALSO. Le operazioni sono tutte oltre i due minuti, come richiesto, e ove non fosse, era perchè spostato lo STOP LOSS ( E FRA L'ALTRO, IMMAGINATE LA BEFFA SE CONTEGGIATE COME SCALPING PERFINO SE VA A TAKE PROFIT!!! OVVIAMENTE LA REGOLA DEI DUE MINUTI DOVREBBE VALERE SOLO PER LE OPERAZIONI CHIUSE A "MARKET"!!!) che MI ERA STATO COMUNICATO DA XXX, VOSTRO DIPENDENTE, PERFETTAMENTE REGOLARE COME AZIONE.Voi dite che: “Riguardo all'indicazione ricevuta da XXX: le comunicazioni ricevute al di fuori del processo di revisione del payout non possono influenzare né sostituire la valutazione della conformità effettuata dal nostro team di rischio”. Peccato che il tale XXX mi scriveva dall’Azienda e si dichiarava “Brand Reputation”, e rispondendomi dall’Azienda Upcomers presumevo fosse la SOLA voce autorevole…. Evidentemente NON è così, voi, UPCOMERS SIETE UN’AZIENDA CHE DITE SU UNO STESSO ARGOMENTO COSE OPPOSTE. AZIENDE COSI’ HANNO REPUTAZIONE PESSIMA E VALORE ZERO. E COMUNQUE QUESTE SPECIFICAZIONI NON SONO SUL VOSTRO SITO DA NESSUNA PARTE. PERCIO’ FALSO. Martingala: E’ bizzarro che in un payout, che significa prelievo, si vadano a contestare le PERDITE|!… Ci sarebbe da ridere…. PERCIO’ FALSO IN QUANTO INSIGNIFICANTE. Dimensioni eccessive delle Posizioni: “La revisione ha identificato 4 operazioni in cui questa soglia è stata superata”. Mi specificate DOVE? SE QUESTO FOSSE STATO VERO SAREI ANDATO IN DROWDOWN E MI SI SAREBBE CHIUSO IL CONTO IN AUTOMATICO. PERCIO’ FALSO. La Sezione "Come Si È Formato Il Risultato": Mi dite che è tutto a posto e le vostra note ( in cui mi si contestava il fatto che tre trade fossero il 50% del profitto, contestandomi di fatto la regola della consistency pure sulle operazioni oltre che sul giorno: peccato che da nessuna parte esistesse come regola… Infatti poi se la sono dovuta rimangiare, dicendo che veniva detto solo per “trasparenza”….) mi dite valgono nulla, dette solo per, dite voi, “trasparenza”. Ovvero parole inutili: faccio come non fossero state neppure scritte. Pattern di Trading Reattivo: UN CASO, UN SOLO CASO SU PIU’ DI 60 TRADE…… E PURTROPPO, PER VOI, ANDATO PURE IN NETTO TP. LA DECISIONE: avete preso la decisione di rifiutare un payout di 5000 dollari circa ESCLUSIVAMENTE PER UN TRADE IN CUI SI E’ VERIFICATO UN PATTERN REATTIVO…… e dopo avervi io, DOVUTO SMONTARE ben tre “accuse” ed autoneutralizzata la quarta!!! SONO SICURO CHE I VOSTRI FUTURI CLIENTI ADOTTERANNO LA STESSA SEVERITA’ NEL VISIONARE LE RECENSIONI DELLA VOSTRA “AZIENDA”.

Sinceramente non è tanto male prezzi competitivi e unici al mercato mi trovo bene solo che sono un pò deluso per la mia esperienza personale ho due account funded e ne avevo un altro che mi hanno chiuso perché secondo loro il mio trading ha violate alcune regole tipo martingale che ho spiegato ripetutamente che il mio trading è scalping e sono molto veloci che durano più di due minuti che a volte viene chiusa prima per uno spread assurdo quindi di conseguenza la mia strategia mi dice di rientrare e per loro è come se io volessi recuperare la perdita però poi mi danno il 25% ed il 50% dei futuri payout ecco questo mi sa dell'assurdo perché invece di incentivare i trader voi li fate scappare ma va bene cosi secondo me le vostre regole andrebbero un pò riviste mi sa che mi sposterò su altra azienda e questo mi dispiace tanto perché vi avevo dato tanta fiducia

Cumplí todas las reglas numéricas que el propio panel de Upcomers muestra durante el proceso:

Drawdown diario: 0.23% (límite 4%)
Pérdida máxima global: 1.07% (límite 7%)
Días mínimos de trading: 9 de 6 requeridos
Consistencia (mejor día): 19.73% (límite 20%)

A pesar de tener todos los indicadores en verde, mi solicitud de pago fue denegada. El equipo de riesgos argumentó que había utilizado estrategias como 'tick scalping', 'position stacking' y 'martingala'.

Al revisar su documentación oficial para entender la decisión, encontré que:

'Tick Scalping' es la única regla clara, con un límite de 2 minutos por operación .

'Position Stacking' es un término que ni siquiera aparece definido en su centro de ayuda .

'Martingala' se describe como una estrategia general, pero sin especificar límites concretos para su aplicación en la práctica, lo que deja su interpretación a criterio del equipo de riesgos .

En sus propios Términos y Condiciones, Upcomers se reserva el derecho de decidir bajo su "único criterio" ("sole discretion") qué constituye una infracción en casos poco claros . Esto demuestra que el proceso de revisión se basa en criterios subjetivos y no en reglas objetivas y previamente comunicadas.

Por esta razón, no recomiendo Upcomers.

pure scam, they wont payout all because i used a specific strategy and had my bot spam it.

as a resident of the UAE im reporting them to Dubai Police, freezone authorities as well as the federal court .

y'all will be hearing from my lawyer so count your days

I purchased an Ash Turbo $100,000 challenge after seeing Upcomers advertise "No Hidden Rules", "Transparent Payouts", and a "99% Profit Split".

I successfully passed the challenge, became funded, completed KYC, signed the agreement, met the profit target requirements, and submitted my first payout request.

My account generated $3,152.20 in profit and I requested a payout of approximately $990. Instead of receiving the payout as expected, Upcomers conducted a review and reduced my payout by 75%, approving only $247.50.

The reasons given included "tick scalping", "position stacking", "hedging", "reactive trading patterns", and concerns about my "risk profile" and "risk management consistency".

I requested the specific trades, ticket numbers, timestamps, and evidence used to support these conclusions. Upcomers refused to provide them, stating that they do not disclose the trades or audit criteria used in their reviews.

What concerns me most is that the company markets itself using phrases such as "No Hidden Rules" and "Transparent Payouts", yet when I became profitable, my payout was reduced based on subjective assessments that I was not able to independently verify or challenge.

Upcomers also informed me that future payouts on this account will be subject to a 50% payout limitation.

I am not claiming that companies cannot have rules. My concern is that a trader can complete the program, become funded, generate profits, and still have a payout significantly reduced without being provided with the underlying evidence used to justify the decision.

I have retained screenshots of the marketing claims, account statistics, payout request, and email correspondence.

Potential customers should carefully read all terms, payout policies, prohibited strategy rules, and review procedures before purchasing a challenge and should keep records of all communications.

This review reflects my personal experience with account 580866 and the outcome of my first payout request.

Dear Trader Agreements & Payouts Department,

I am writing regarding account 580866 and the payout review decision.

I would like clarification on a point that remains unclear to me.

Your review concluded that my trading included prohibited strategies and trading patterns, including Tick Scalping, Position Stacking, Hedging, and Reactive Trading. These findings were serious enough to reduce my payout by 75% and impose a future 50% payout limitation on the account.

However, despite these findings:

- My account was never suspended during the trading period.
- I never received a warning while the trading activity was taking place.
- The account was allowed to continue operating normally.
- I was allowed to complete the funded account requirements.
- The account remains active today and I am still permitted to trade.

This raises an important question:

If the identified behavior constituted prohibited trading activity, why was the account permitted to continue trading without intervention, warning, or suspension at the time the behavior allegedly occurred?

From my perspective, the first indication that any issue existed was only after I became profitable and submitted a payout request.

I am trying to understand how this process aligns with the principles of transparency and fairness, particularly given the public statements on your website regarding transparent payouts and the absence of hidden rules.

If a trader is unknowingly engaging in behavior that may later lead to a substantial payout reduction, would it not be more appropriate to notify the trader when the behavior occurs rather than after profits have been generated and a payout has been requested?

I would appreciate a direct response to this specific question.

Thank you for your time and clarification.

WHAT HAVE I EXPERIENCED WITH UPCOMERS?

First time. I reached a payout and my account was placed under review. Eventually, I received allegations regarding my trading style. What stood out to me was that most of the issues raised were not clearly defined in the publicly available rules that traders can easily review before trading. I spent a significant amount of time asking for clarification and explanations. In the end, my payout was denied, 50% of my profits were confiscated, and I accepted that outcome.

Second time. I worked directly with the Brand Reputation team regarding these concerns. After many discussions, I was told that my trading style was acceptable and did not violate any rules. However, when I reached payout again, I was once again accused of violating trading methodology rules. When I asked which specific trades were considered violations and at what times they occurred, I was told that the review was internal and that the details would not be disclosed. The payout calculation looked like this: $2,000 payout → reduced by 50% → reduced again to 25% → withdrawal fees applied. Final amount received: approximately $153. I did in fact receive only $153, and my trading account was terminated. Throughout the discussions, I repeatedly requested several basic principles: if a payout is denied, a specific explanation should be provided; if a trader is considered in violation, the company should identify the trades involved and the rule that was allegedly violated; and reviews should be based on publicly available rules. After many rounds of discussion, these points were finally acknowledged. That led me to ask a simple question: why weren’t these transparency standards in place from the beginning?

Third time. Just when I thought everything had finally been resolved, I adjusted my trading approach, continued trading, and eventually reached another payout stage. This time I received a new accusation: “Multi-accounting.” The explanation given was that two accounts had appeared on the same device and within the same network environment. One of those accounts belonged to my wife. It was registered under her own name, belonged to a different individual, had never received a payout, had stopped trading months before my second payout cycle, had no matching trades whatsoever with my account, did not trade on the same days, and showed no evidence of hedging or coordinated activity. I asked the company to clarify the evidence comparing the trading histories of both accounts and whether there was any direct evidence beyond shared devices or a shared household network.

My concern is not that a company conducts investigations. Investigations are their right. My concern is that traders can be heavily impacted by conclusions while not being provided with sufficient data or evidence to independently assess those conclusions. At times, it feels as though broad internal interpretations can outweigh the written rules available to traders. If I truly violated the rules, why was the issue not raised immediately? Why wait until payout, place the account under review for several days, and only then introduce a new reason to challenge the payout?

I believe many traders could eventually find themselves in a similar situation. This is simply my personal experience. Make your own judgment, do your own research, and read the rules very carefully before deciding to trade with any prop firm. If anyone would like to review the evidence themselves, feel free to contact me privately. I can share the relevant conversations and supporting materials so everyone can draw their own conclusions.

Hay vamos podría ser mejor