Guardeer Funding is a forex prop firm that runs its accounts on MetaTrader 5 and, according to its official site, guardeerfunding.com, pays out on a bi-weekly cycle. As of November 8, 2026, the firm was paused for a systems upgrade and had not published challenge pricing. That pause matters more than any rule or price: until the firm resumes normal operation and publishes its challenge terms, there is no live offer to evaluate or compare. Its Trustpilot reviews are split between a large five-star majority and a sizeable one-star share. When we visited from Tallinn, Estonia on 13 November 2026, the site still showed only its maintenance notice about moving MT-5 accounts and upgrading its CRM, and we could not read any prices, rules, company name or risk warning.
What Guardeer Funding is
Guardeer Funding sells access to simulated or evaluated trading capital in the forex market. A trader pays for an account, trades it under the firm’s rules, and, after meeting the firm’s conditions, becomes eligible for a share of profits on a funded account. The confirmed parts of its setup are narrow:
- Platform: MetaTrader 5
- Instruments: forex
- Payout frequency: bi-weekly, as stated on the official site
- Consistency rule: none stated
- Public discount code: none at the last check
A Guardeer funded account is therefore an MT5 forex account. Traders who rely on cTrader, TradingView-linked execution, futures, or crypto CFDs should not assume those are available.
Current status: paused and under maintenance
The firm’s announcement described the website as under maintenance during an upgrade of MT5 accounts and the CRM. The CRM is the client system where traders usually buy challenges, view account credentials, submit KYC documents, and request payouts. An upgrade to both the trading accounts and that client system touches nearly every step of the trader’s relationship with the firm.
The announcement itself describes an upgrade, nothing more, so it is not evidence of misconduct. It does change what a reader can act on:
- New buyers cannot judge an offer that is not currently presented. Buying through an unofficial channel during a maintenance window adds risk with no upside.
- Existing account holders should keep their own records: account numbers, trade history exports from MT5, payment receipts and any payout requests already submitted. If account data is migrated to a new server or CRM, a personal copy of the trade history is the trader’s evidence if a balance or a payout request is disputed later.
- Anyone tracking the firm should wait for the official site to state that the upgrade is complete and that terms are published before treating the firm as open for business.
Costs and challenge terms
Guardeer Funding has no published pricing for its challenges, so account sizes, fees, phase targets and drawdown limits cannot be set against other firms yet. For a pay-to-evaluate product, that is the deciding gap. The fee is the trader’s maximum loss on a failed challenge, and the rules attached to it determine how likely a pass is.
When pricing does appear, one standard comparison is the fee per $10,000 of account size:
Price per $10K = challenge fee ÷ (account size ÷ 10,000)
Hypothetical example: a $100,000 account priced at $500 works out to $500 ÷ 10 = $50 per $10K. A $25,000 account priced at $150 works out to $150 ÷ 2.5 = $60 per $10K. The smaller account costs less in dollars but more per unit of buying power. These figures are illustrations of the formula, not Guardeer’s prices.
Price per $10K only compares like with like when the rules match. A cheaper account with a tighter daily loss limit or a trailing drawdown can cost more in practice, because it fails more often.
Trading rules: what is stated and what to confirm
Consistency rule
No consistency rule is stated for Guardeer Funding. A consistency rule limits how much of a trader’s total profit can come from a single day or trade. A typical form caps the best day at a set percentage of total profit before a payout or pass is allowed. Firms use it to filter out accounts that pass on one oversized trade.
“None stated” and “none applies” are different things. A firm can include a consistency condition in its funded-account terms or payout policy without labeling it that way on a summary page. A trader whose style produces lumpy returns, such as a few large news-day wins, should get written confirmation that no such condition applies at either the evaluation or the payout stage.
Drawdown mechanics to pin down
Guardeer has not published drawdown or daily loss figures. The definitions behind them matter as much as the percentages, so these are the distinctions to settle once the terms are available:
- Balance-based vs. equity-based limits. A balance-based daily limit counts only closed trades. An equity-based limit includes floating profit and loss. Hypothetical: on a $50,000 account with a 5% daily limit ($2,500), a trader with $2,000 in closed losses and a $700 open loss has breached an equity-based limit ($2,700) but not a balance-based one ($2,000).
- Static vs. trailing maximum drawdown. A static limit stays fixed relative to the starting balance. A trailing limit moves up as the account reaches new highs, which reduces the room a profitable trader has to give back gains.
- Daily reset time. The server time at which the daily loss counter resets decides which trades count toward which day. On MT5 this is tied to the broker server’s clock, not the trader’s local time.
Platform considerations
MT5 supports expert advisors, copy tools and hedging-mode accounts at the software level. Whether Guardeer permits them depends on its rules, as do news trading, holding positions over the weekend, and lot-size caps.
Payouts
According to the official site, payouts are bi-weekly. In practice, the term can mean two different schedules:
- Every two weeks (every 14 days): about 26 payout windows a year (52 weeks ÷ 2).
- Twice a month (for example, on fixed dates): 24 windows a year.
The difference is small over a year. It matters more for the first payout, because many firms start the clock from the first trade on the funded account rather than from the purchase date. Assuming a fixed 14-day cycle that starts with the first funded trade, a trader who places that trade on a Monday would reach the first eligible request two weeks later, provided all other conditions are met.
Payout schedules vary across firms. FundingPips also pays bi-weekly. Bulenox pays every day. OneFunded runs a 14-day cycle with a 7-day option as an add-on. XPIPS uses a cycle that shortens from 30 days to 21 and then 14. A bi-weekly schedule sits in the middle of that range: slower than daily, faster than a monthly start.
Frequency is only one part of a payout policy. Before relying on the bi-weekly figure, confirm:
- The profit split on the funded account and whether it changes over time.
- Payout methods (bank transfer, crypto, or payment processors) and any fees on each.
- Minimum withdrawal amount and minimum trading days per cycle.
- Whether the challenge fee is refunded with the first payout.
- KYC requirements and when they are triggered.
Trader reviews
Guardeer Funding holds a 3.8 Trustpilot rating from 605 reviews. That figure is Trustpilot’s own metric, not an independent audit. The distribution behind it is more informative than the average:
| Stars | Reviews | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 449 | 74.2% |
| 4 | 22 | 3.6% |
| 3 | 4 | 0.7% |
| 2 | 6 | 1.0% |
| 1 | 124 | 20.5% |
About 78% of reviews are four or five stars and about 21.5% are one or two stars. Only four reviews sit in the middle. The 3.8 average describes almost no one’s actual rating: reviewers mostly either rate the firm at the top or at the bottom.
A trader weighing the firm should read the one-star reviews directly, sorted by date, check whether they cluster around the maintenance period, and look for repeated specifics such as denied payouts, rule interpretations or account access. A short list of positives (“no hidden rules,” “no payout delays”) in a five-star review carries less information than a dated, detailed account of a specific payout.
Strengths and trade-offs
What works in its favor
- A stated bi-weekly payout cycle, which is a reasonable cadence for forex prop accounts.
- No consistency rule stated, which could suit traders whose profits come unevenly.
- MT5 as the platform, familiar to most retail forex traders and widely supported by tools and brokers’ educational material.
- A large positive review base, with 471 four- and five-star ratings on Trustpilot.
What weighs against it
- Paused status with an ongoing systems upgrade, so there is no active offer to buy or assess.
- No published challenge pricing, which blocks any cost comparison.
- A meaningful one-star share (about one review in five), large enough that it should be read rather than averaged away.
- A narrow setup: forex only, MT5 only. Traders who want futures, crypto or another platform are outside its scope.
- No current discount code, which matters if you are comparing net cost against firms that run regular promotions.
Risks before paying any prop firm in this position
A firm in maintenance with unpublished terms concentrates several risks in the buyer’s hands. These steps reduce them without assuming anything about Guardeer’s intentions:
- Buy only through the official site once it is live, and only when the terms page for your account size is visible.
- Save a copy of the rules (PDF or screenshot with date) on the day you buy. Prop firm terms change, and the version you agreed to is your reference in a dispute.
- Pay with a method that leaves a record, and keep the receipt.
- Confirm the company behind the site: the legal entity name, its registration country and the contact address in the terms. A prop firm sells an evaluation service rather than taking deposits, so it is often not licensed as a broker. That makes the named entity the main point of accountability.
- Request a small first payout early if you get funded, to test the process before building a large balance.
Who it may suit
On the available terms, the Guardeer prop firm fits a narrow profile: a forex trader who works on MT5, values a bi-weekly payout rhythm and does not want a consistency rule. That trader also needs to be willing to wait for the firm to resume and publish pricing before committing. Traders who need to buy and start this week, or who want to compare prices side by side, have no usable offer here yet.
How we checked Guardeer Funding
On 13 November 2026 we opened guardeerfunding.com from Tallinn, Estonia, first in a desktop browser and then on a phone. The homepage showed the same notice both times. It said the firm was shifting all MT-5 accounts and upgrading its CRM system, and asked visitors to wait until Wednesday, when the site would be live again. We scrolled down to the footer, looking for a company name. There wasn’t one.
No prices, account sizes, drawdown limits or payout terms were readable. The maintenance notice sat in front of everything we tried to reach, so none of the pricing or rule details in this review came from the brand’s own pages on the day of our visit. Our attempt to test the checkout went nowhere. That means we cannot say whether buying a challenge requires opening an account first. The site named no legal entity, showed no licence or registration number, made no statement about any regulator and carried no risk warning.
Registers were a short story. Guardeer claims no licence, so there was nothing to look up in a register we can query, and we ran no register check. Domain records show guardeerfunding.com was registered on 2024-07-09 through GoDaddy.com, LLC, with an expiry date of 2027-07-09. The Wayback Machine’s first capture of the site is dated 2024-07-14, a few days after registration. That capture could in principle predate the current brand, though nothing we saw suggests the domain changed hands.
We read the Trustpilot profile on 13 November 2026. It showed 3.8/5 from 605 reviews, with 74% five-star and 20% one-star. The company has claimed the profile but had replied to 0 of the 8 newest reviews. Plenty remains unconfirmed. The bi-weekly payout cycle, the MT5 setup and the identity of the company behind the brand could not be checked against the site during our visit, so treat them as unverified until the firm publishes its terms.
Alternatives while the firm is paused
If the reason you were looking at Guardeer Funding was MT5 forex with a regular payout cadence, the closest like-for-like check is FundingPips, which also pays bi-weekly. The FundingPips rules set out its drawdown and payout terms in detail. The5ers and FundedNext are other forex-focused firms with full reviews. If the main constraint is the fee, the cheapest prop firm challenges ranking compares entry costs directly.
Alternatives
| Provider | Score | Fee | Split | Payouts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.2/10 | $111 | Up to 90% | 14-day cycle (or 7-day cycle with add-on) | Review | |
| 7.7/10 | $175 | up to 90% | everyday | Review | |
| 6.3/10 | $6 | Up to 85% | 30d → 21d → 14d | Review |