Next Level Funding Review 2026: What 44 Trader Reviews Actually Say

Last updated: May 2026

You might have seen the ads. Cheap evaluation accounts, 90% profit split, claims of instant funding. Next Level Funding has been pushing hard on social media for a while now.

But here's what you actually need to know before handing over your money.

I pulled the full data on this firm, every Trustpilot review, every pricing tier, every rule in their challenges. The picture that emerges is messy. Some traders say they got paid fast. Others say they got blocked after requesting a payout.

Let me walk through what the firm claims, what traders report, and what we've been able to verify.

What Is Next Level Funding?

Next Level Funding is a UK-based prop firm that offers a one-step evaluation and an instant funding program. They trade the usual pitch, get funded, keep most of the profit, scale up to $2 million.

Their website is nextlevelfunding.co.uk. The owner appears to be someone named Carl, who shows up repeatedly in trader reviews, sometimes praised, sometimes accused of ghosting people who ask for withdrawals.

The firm is flagged as closed in our backend data. That matters. We'll get to why.

The Two Challenge Models

One-Step Evaluation

This is their main product. One phase, 8% profit target, 12% total drawdown (balanced), 5% daily loss limit. No minimum trading days. Payouts every 30 days with a 15-day processing window.

Pricing runs:

That's cheap. A $100k evaluation for $456 puts them on the lower end of the market. Compare that to FTMO's $1,080 or FundedNext's $649 for a similar size.

The 12% total drawdown with a 5% daily limit is standard for a one-step model. The 8% profit target is lower than the usual 10%, which makes passing theoretically easier.

But here's the problem. The drawdown type is listed as "balanced drawdown" in the data, which means your losses are measured against your starting balance, not your peak equity. That matters because a balanced drawdown is stricter than a relative one. If you hit a losing streak, you eat through that 12% faster than you'd expect.

Instant Funding

This one costs more because you skip the evaluation. Prices start at $217 for $10k and go up to $1,629 for $100k.

The rules are tighter. 5% total drawdown, 3% daily loss limit. Same 8% profit target. Same payout schedule.

For the instant funding, you're paying a premium to avoid proving yourself. Whether that's worth it depends on how confident you are in your strategy.

Profit Split: The Numbers

Next Level Funding advertises 70% in the first month and 90% from the second month onward.

That 90% number grabs attention. Most firms cap out around 80-85%. Getting 90% on a live account is rare, if it actually happens.

A few traders on Trustpilot report getting paid with that split. One reviewer, Jay, said he got his second payout from NLF, though the wait was "slightly longer" than the first time. Another trader, Marcello, reported a $1,321 payout, describing it as "nice for a side hustle."

But here's the catch. The 70-90% split only matters if the firm actually pays. And that's where the reviews split hard.

What Traders Report: The Trustpilot Data

Trustpilot gives Next Level Funding a 3.2 out of 5. 44 reviews total. But the distribution tells a strange story.

34 reviews are five-star. 10 are one-star. Zero reviews at two, three, or four stars.

That's unusual. Real businesses usually get reviews across the spectrum. A perfect polarization, all top or bottom, often signals either review manipulation or a product that genuinely divides users into lovers and haters with no middle ground.

Let me go through what each side says.

The Five-Star Reviews

Some of the positive reviews read like genuine experiences. Jay, who got a second payout, wrote: "slightly longer wait this time round but through emails and speaking to Carl was kept updated on the situation. Just a little patience is needed sometimes which people forget."

Adam h wrote: "swift withdrawal process and almost immediate response to my questions regarding live accounts."

Kieran said: "spreads are good, latency in trades are upto speed & withdrawals aren't a challenge in itself as opposed to other prop firms."

Jack Freeman wrote: "got my first withdraw fast, best prop firm ive used for spreads commission and trade execution."

These sound like real traders who actually got paid. The language is specific, mentions spreads and execution, and doesn't read like marketing copy.

The One-Star Reviews

Then you have the other side.

Shameema Affrose wrote in April 2026: "Don't fall for 10 dollars or 25 dollars for 25k instant accounts they will manipulate with minimum 2 minute holding the trade rules and they will manipulate with consistency as well."

Praveen reported being blocked: "suddenly I'm unable to login and when I questioned them no response and eventually they had blocked me."

Aman Panchal wrote: "I paid for a challenge account and never received any credentials. When I mail them, they just write one line reply."

oO MUSI Oo said: "I requested a payout 2 weeks ago but have heard nothing from them."

Mohammad Bitouni wrote a detailed complaint: "2 weeks of payout request and not a single person got back to me with proofs! I was in Carl's course group and I was kicked out because I called him out in public for not paying me."

Luffy wrote: "the company arbitrarily rejected my request without providing a reasonable justification."

Nash Rich reported: "it's been over a month and I haven't received my withdrawal."

The pattern is consistent. Several traders across different time periods report the same issues: payout delays, being ignored, getting blocked for asking questions.

The Polarization Problem

When you see a 34-10 split with zero middle-ground reviews, you have to ask what's happening.

One possibility: the five-star reviews are genuine but the one-star reviews are from traders who broke rules. Another possibility: the five-star reviews are inflated or incentivized, and the one-star reviews represent the real experience for most traders.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. Some traders definitely got paid. Others definitely didn't. The question is which experience is more common for the average buyer.

Rules and Restrictions

Let me break down what Next Level Funding allows and doesn't allow, based on the data.

Allowed

• Weekend holding

• Overnight holding

• EA trading (though the FAQ contradicts this and says no EAs on live accounts)

Not Allowed

• High-frequency trading

• Grid trading

• Martingale

• Hedging

• Copy trading

• Third-party account management

• News trading

The EA contradiction is worth noting. The challenge data says EA allowed is false (set to false in the API). But the firm description says EA trading is true. The FAQ says EAs are prohibited on live accounts. That's three different positions from the same firm.

Consistency Rule

The FAQ mentions a consistency rule requiring a minimum of five trading days with similar risk levels. But the challenge data shows consistency_rule: false across every challenge tier.

This is either a data gap or the firm changed its rules without updating everything. Either way, traders should check the latest terms on the website before buying.

Pricing and Discounts

A 20% meta discount is available. The data shows $71 for a $10k evaluation, $157 for $25k, $282 for $50k, $456 for $100k.

Compared to the market:

• FTMO $10k evaluation: $155

• FTMO $100k evaluation: $1,080

• FundedNext $100k evaluation: $649

• Next Level Funding $100k evaluation: $456

NLF is cheaper. Significantly cheaper. But price is only one factor. A cheap evaluation that doesn't pay out is more expensive than an expensive one that does.

Payment methods include credit/debit cards and USDT TRC-20 crypto.

Platform and Trading Conditions

Next Level Funding uses MT5 exclusively. That's a solid choice, MT5 is widely used and reliable. But some traders prefer cTrader or other platforms, so the single-platform limitation could matter depending on your setup.

The firm claims raw spreads on all pairs. A few positive reviews mention tight spreads and good execution. One trader said spreads were "best" and execution was fast. But I don't have independent spread data for EUR/USD, XAUUSD, or NAS100 to verify this.

The broker type is listed as Forex. Instrument lists are missing from the data, so I can't tell you exactly what's available beyond the generic pairs they likely offer.

Payout Process

The payout period is listed as 30 days with a 15-day processing window. So when you request a payout, they have up to 15 days to process it, and you can request again every 30 days.

That's slower than the industry average. Many firms now pay within 48 hours or weekly. A 30-day cycle with a 15-day processing window means you could wait 45 days from request to money in hand.

The withdrawal methods are not specified in the data. That's a gap.

Refund of challenge fees is listed as true, which means if you pass the evaluation, you can get the fee refunded against your first profit split. That's standard.

First payout guarantee is listed as false. That means there's no guarantee your first payout will be honored. Combined with the payout complaints in reviews, this is worth noting.

Scaling Plan

The firm advertises scaling up to $2,000,000. But the scaling rules field is empty in the data. No information on how scaling works, when it kicks in, what the criteria are.

Without that detail, the $2 million number is just marketing. You can't evaluate whether it's achievable or just a headline.

What's Missing

Several pieces of information are not available in the data:

Regulatory status. No registration number, no legal country, no regulatory body. The firm operates without apparent oversight.

Founder details. No CEO name, no LinkedIn profiles, no company background. The name "Carl" appears in trader reviews, but there's no verified information about who runs this firm.

Company background. The year of launch is missing. The company_background field is empty. There's no way to verify how long this firm has been operating.

Web traffic data. Not available.

Payout proof. None on file. No verified payout proof from the community.

Forum discussions. None cached.

Social media posts. None cached.

This is a firm with very little public footprint beyond its website and Trustpilot page.

The Firm Closed Flag

The most concerning data point is firm_closed: true.

This flag in the backend suggests the firm may no longer be operating or accepting new clients. The website still appears to be up based on the requests that were made, but the flag raises serious questions.

If a prop firm is closed, traders with active challenges or funded accounts could face issues. Payouts could stop. Support could disappear.

I don't have confirmation of what "closed" means in this context, could be the firm shut down, could be a data error. But it's a red flag that deserves attention.

Pros and Cons

Based on the data and trader reports, here's my assessment.

What Works

Low pricing. The evaluation costs are well below market average. A $100k challenge for $456 is genuinely cheap.

One-step evaluation. Only needing to hit 8% with a 12% drawdown is simpler than two-step models. No minimum trading days means you can pass as fast as you trade well.

High profit split after month one. 90% is among the best in the industry, if they pay it.

Weekend and overnight holding allowed. Many firms restrict this. NLF allows it, which gives flexibility for swing traders.

Some traders report getting paid. The positive reviews on Trustpilot include specific payout amounts and trader names. Not all of them are fake.

What Doesn't Work

Payout complaints are consistent and numerous. Multiple traders across multiple time periods report delayed or denied payouts. Some report being blocked after asking about withdrawals. This is the single biggest risk.

Customer support goes dark. Several traders report sending multiple emails and DMs with no response. When support does respond, it's often a single line with no explanation.

The firm closed flag. If NLF is no longer operating, active accounts may be at risk.

No regulatory oversight. No registration, no legal structure visible, no accountability if things go wrong.

Zero middle-ground reviews. The Trustpilot profile is unusually polarized. 34 five-star, 10 one-star, nothing between. This either means the product is polarizing or the reviews are curated.

Missing scaling details. The $2 million scaling claim has no documented criteria or verification process.

Inconsistent rules on EAs. The challenge data, firm description, and FAQ give different answers about whether automated trading is allowed.

Payout cycle is slow. 30 days between requests with up to 15 days processing means you could wait over a month for money that's already earned.

Who Should Consider Next Level Funding

If you are looking at this firm, ask yourself these questions:

Can you afford to lose the challenge fee if the firm doesn't pay? If the answer is no, look elsewhere.

Are you comfortable with slow payouts? The 30-45 day cycle means you won't get fast access to your profits.

Do you have a backup plan if support stops responding? Multiple traders report being ghosted.

Who Should Avoid Next Level Funding

If you need reliable payouts, avoid this firm. The payout complaint pattern is too consistent to ignore.

If you're a beginner who might need support, avoid this firm. Support quality is erratic at best.

If regulatory oversight matters to you, avoid this firm. There's no visible registration or legal framework.

If you want fast payouts, avoid this firm. The 30-day cycle with 15-day processing is slow.

How It Compares

Next Level Funding is a budget prop firm. Low prices, high advertised splits, but unreliable payout track record.

Compare it to established firms:

FTMO. More expensive but proven payout history, regulated structure, reliable support. You pay more but you know what you're getting.

FundedNext. Mid-range pricing, growing track record, multiple payout options. Not perfect but more transparent than NLF.

The5ers. Different model (no time limit, gradual scaling), solid payout reputation. Less flashy but more consistent.

NLF competes on price. That's its only clear advantage. If you're deciding between a $456 NLF evaluation and a $1,080 FTMO evaluation, the difference is $624. That $624 is the premium you pay for a firm with a known track record. Whether it's worth it depends on how much you value reliability.

Summary

Final Verdict

Next Level Funding is a high-risk choice.

The low prices and high profit split will attract traders, especially beginners who see the numbers and think they've found a bargain. But the pattern of payout complaints, the inconsistent support responses, the missing regulatory structure, and the firm closed flag all point to the same conclusion.

Traders should confirm the firm's current operating status on the official website before purchasing any challenge. Rules can change. Firms can close. If you're considering Next Level Funding, check the latest information, read the terms directly, and have a clear understanding of what happens if the firm stops responding.

Prop firm evaluations involve risk. Most traders do not pass. Failing an evaluation means losing the challenge fee. With Next Level Funding, there's additional risk that even a passed evaluation won't result in a paid payout.

I'd recommend looking at established firms with verified payout histories first. The difference in price is smaller than the difference in getting paid versus not getting paid.

Trading challenges involve risk. Most traders do not pass evaluations. Always read the firm's latest rules before buying. This review is based on available information as of May 2026. Firm policies can change.