Platforms · Software · Providers · Markets
FTMO made futures trading part of its prop business on 31 August 2026, opening a new product alongside its established CFD offering. The firm said its futures service is available through Tradovate, NinjaTrader and TradingView. Building it required a separate team and significant capital, according to co-founders Otakar Šuffner and Marek Vašíček.
The move also comes as the company runs OANDA, the broker it acquired from private equity firm CVC. FTMO began in 2015 with CFDs, after the founders decided they lacked the capital and business experience to enter futures. They had first become interested in futures trading 14 years ago, while at the Prague University of Economics and Business.
Futures add a second trading model
FTMO is entering a segment where evaluation fees can be lower than in CFD and FX prop programmes. Industry pricing data cited in the report put the average charge for a $100,000 futures evaluation at roughly $190, against about $420 for a $100,000 CFD/FX evaluation. Those figures describe market pricing, not FTMO's own fee.
Rather than use the subscription approach associated with many futures evaluations, FTMO has chosen a one-time payment. Šuffner said the firm settled on the format after asking clients which markets and products they wanted. He also described futures as a frequent customer request.
The founders are treating the launch as a business line in its own right, not an add-on to their CFD operation. That puts FTMO up against established US firms such as Topstep. Vašíček said he did not view the entry requirements as comparable to those in regulated financial services.
Vašíček said he had anticipated a customer base weighted towards the US, but reported interest from multiple regions. The source does not detail how FTMO divides futures trading activity among its platform connections, or explain the product's execution, clearing and reconciliation arrangements.
OANDA broadens the group's reach
Before pursuing OANDA, the founders considered buying smaller brokers with regional licences in Europe and Australia, then developing their brokerage operation internally. They recruited industry figures in late 2024, including former Skilling CEO Michael Kamerman. The OANDA opportunity offered a firm with a 30-year market presence and licences across most major hubs.
Vašíček said his initial response to the proposed deal was disbelief, before the founders concluded that OANDA could give the group broader international reach. Negotiations with CVC also meant calls scheduled at 3:00 am, Šuffner said. OANDA and FTMO continue to have separate management teams, while both founders serve as co-CEOs of the wider group.
The acquisition was not, Šuffner said, a way to secure a direct MetaQuotes licence after the platform provider withdrew licences from firms sub-leasing its software to US prop businesses in 2024. The disruption led some firms to buy regulated brokers. As Finance Magnates reported, FTMO described its rationale instead as strengthening the group and widening its services.
Regulatory questions remain. ESMA began preliminary reviews of prop trading in 2024, while the Dutch financial regulator ruled in January that instant-funding accounts from Unfunded amounted to CFD trading without the required MiFID II licence.
A court upheld that decision. FTMO has also received inquiries from the Spanish regulator and ASIC, and Šuffner said the company is monitoring the case and its potential implications.
FTMO reported 2025 revenue of approximately $420 million, up 31% year on year. Net income fell by 59% to roughly $37.5 million, a decline the company attributed to market volatility; it also missed projected trader payout targets by 82%.
Vašíček said a regulated market could leave tens of prop firms where hundreds operate now. The founders retain full ownership of FTMO and OANDA and have not ruled out an eventual public listing or other outside investment.
What an operations team should check
For firms assessing the launch, the immediate questions are about the boundaries between the evaluation product and each platform connection. Which system owns order state, how are fills and fees reconciled, and where do risk limits and payout rules run? FTMO has not disclosed those technical details in the source report, so operators should seek clarity before treating the named platform connections as a complete picture of the workflow.
The regulatory and group structure also warrants review. Teams should establish which entity contracts with customers, where reporting responsibilities sit, and how rule changes in relevant jurisdictions would affect account access and operations. The source does not set out FTMO's arrangements for those processes, nor the cost of running its futures service.
