Does Sure Leverage Funding pay out?
The verdict, the risk score and the figures behind them.
Real positives and real negatives coexist here.
Yes, Sure Leverage Funding pays, and it pays fast, but traders repeatedly receive materially less than the product card led them to expect.
- Five dated, named payout reports from independent traders between June and September 2026, the most recent on 3 September 2026. Money demonstrably leaves, often inside 24 hours.
- The flagship Instant Funding Zero pays 70% in the firm's own rules, while the site advertises up to 100% and its comparison table mocks rival firms for paying 70%.
- One trader documented earning $700 and receiving $131 after deductions. Profit is deducted trade by trade at payout time, and a payout is declined outright if half the trades are flagged.
- The site claims it was established in 2022. The domain was registered on 9 April 2024 and the Saint Lucia entity carries a 2025 company number.
- Disclosure of who runs it is unusually good: named CEO, two named legal entities with addresses, and a plain statement that all trading is simulated.
Risk breakdown
Six axes, each scored 1-10. Higher means more risk.
Six axes, scored 1 to 10, where a higher number means more risk. Being unregulated is normal for a prop firm and is not scored against them.
- Identity & transparency6/10
Disclosure of who is unusually strong, with a named CEO, CFO and CMO and two legal entities fully addressed including a company number, but the firm makes several claims that do not hold: established 2022 against an April 2024 domain, up to 100% split against 70% in its own rules, and a live payout tracker that does not exist.
- Payout4/10
Five dated, named, independent payout reports between June and September 2026, several processed inside 24 hours, which is genuine evidence money leaves; held above the lowest band because documented cases show payouts materially reduced by deductions and accounts closing at or near payout time.
- Terms & rug-pull risk7/10
Unilateral amendment with no notice, sole discretion over what counts as a violation, at least one rule reviewed only at payout, profit deductible to zero, and liability capped at fees paid; partly mitigated by consistency thresholds published as actual numbers or removed altogether.
- Trading conditions5/10
The simulated model is stated plainly and repeatedly, which is the honest end of this industry, but the maximum loss rule is described as both initial balance and highest water mark in the same sentence and traders are demonstrably losing accounts to that ambiguity.
- Reputation6/10
A 3.7 score across 1,402 reviews with 22% at one star, falling from 4.2 two months earlier, alongside a cluster of single-review accounts posting generic praise and one reviewer stating outright that they hold no account; offset by a 79% reply rate to negative reviews and replies that engage with specifics.
- Operational & social3/10
Clearly alive: a valid Discord invite into a 17,175 member server with 548 online, a YouTube channel of 322 videos posting within the last month, active promotions and support that reviewers across the rating range describe as responsive.
Payout reality
Whether the money actually arrives, and what we could evidence.
Money leaves this firm, and quickly. What is in question is how much of it arrives. Across an independent review platform tied to the firm's own domain we found five dated, named payout accounts between June and September 2026.
- A Great Britain trader on 28 August 2026 described requesting a third payout, noting the previous two had been processed.
- A Singapore trader on 24 August 2026 confirmed a payout received, dating the experience to 10 June 2026.
- An Indonesian trader on 24 August 2026 reported a fast payout and responsive support.
- An Indian trader on 2 September 2026 confirmed receiving a payout, then lost the account to the highest water mark rule he said he was unaware of.
- A Saudi trader, updated 3 September 2026, is the most instructive: paid inside 24 hours, but $700 of profit became $131 in the wallet after deductions, with $300 held back and a 15 day wait.
Against that, the firm's own banners claim $4.2m in total rewards and over $1.68 billion in funding provided. Neither is auditable and neither is a record. The promised live payout tracker, described on the About page as proof updated in real time whenever a trader gets paid, does not exist anywhere on the site.
The denial mechanic here is not refusal. It is subtraction. Profit is stripped trade by trade at the moment a payout is requested, some rules are reviewed only at that point, and a payout is declined entirely if half the trades are flagged.
How the program works
The evaluation, the funded phase and what the firm keeps.
A trader buys a one-off, non-refundable program fee. Nothing is deposited and no capital is at risk with the firm. All accounts run in a simulated environment on MetaTrader 5 or TradeLocker.
- Products: Instant Funding Zero, Static and Trailing, a 1 Step evaluation, a Futures Style range and experimental Labs accounts. Sizes run $5,000 to $200,000, capped at $400,000 total across all programs.
- Price: $43 for 5K up to $1,899 for 200K at list, routinely discounted 40% or more through permanent promotional codes.
- Instant Funding Zero rules: 2% daily loss, 4% maximum loss measured from the highest water mark, no minimum trading days, no consistency rule, no profit cap, EAs not permitted, news trading not permitted at any time, and trades must stay open more than two minutes.
- Split: 70% from the first payout on Instant Funding Zero. Instant Funding Static instead escalates 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, then 80% from the sixth payout.
- Payouts: every 14 days, minimum 0.5% of starting balance, a 2% or $10 minimum transaction fee, and the account resets to its starting balance afterwards. Processing is guaranteed within 24 hours or an extra 10% split is credited.
Who they are
The company behind the brand, and where it is registered.
- Brand: Sure Leverage Funding (SLF)
- Legal entity: ASAP Solutions FZ-LLC, trading as Sure Leverage Funding, the contracting party under the Terms and the entity that collects program fees
- Registered: Ras Al Khaimah Economic Zone free zone, United Arab Emirates. Registered office at Compass Building, CO-WORKING FOAM0528, Al Shohada Road 10055, Al Hamra Industrial Zone-FZ, Ras Al Khaimah
- Second entity: Sure Leverage Funding Ltd, Saint Lucia, company number 2025-00514, which supplies the simulated trading environment and demo accounts
- Support office: Tbilisi, Georgia, stated to be non-contracting
- Website: sureleveragefunding.com, registered 9 April 2024 through Hostinger
- Founded: the About page claims 2022; the domain and the Saint Lucia registration point to 2024 and later, and independent write-ups say late 2023
- Team disclosed: Sebastian Ness (CEO, with a public LinkedIn profile in Dubai and an active X account), Peter Papadeas (CFO), Elijah Salazar (CMO)
- Traders accepted from: broadly international, with heavy participation from India, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Gulf visible in reviews
Company on record
The legal entity named in the terms, as found on a public registry.
- Legal name
- ASAP Solutions FZ-LLC, trading as Sure Leverage Funding
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates (Ras Al Khaimah Economic Zone free zone)
- Registered address
- Compass Building, CO-WORKING FOAM0528, Al Shohada Road 10055, Al Hamra Industrial Zone-FZ, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
- Registry
- Ras Al Khaimah Economic Zone (RAKEZ)
Why this verdict
How the findings add up to this verdict.
Real positives and real negatives sit side by side, which is precisely what MIXED_SIGNALS describes.
- It genuinely pays. Multiple independent, dated, named reports of money arriving, several inside 24 hours, the most recent this month. That rules out the failure verdicts.
- It genuinely misrepresents. Up to 100% profit split is advertised on every pricing card while the flagship product pays 70% in the firm's own written rules, and the comparison table mocks competitors for paying exactly that.
- The founding claim does not hold. Established 2022 sits on a domain created in April 2024, alongside a Saint Lucia entity numbered 2025.
- The drawdown disclosure is contradictory. The rules say 4% of the initial account balance measured from the highest water mark, which are two different things. Traders report accounts closing on the difference.
- The terms are one-sided. Unilateral amendment with no notice, sole discretion over what counts as a violation, and liability capped at the fee paid rather than the profit owed.
- The upside is real too. Named accountable people, two disclosed entities, an explicit simulated-trading statement, published numeric thresholds, a 17,000 member community and replies to 79% of negative reviews.
Counterpoints
The strongest case in their favour, and what would change our mind.
The case in their favour
The strongest honest case for Sure Leverage Funding is better than most firms in this sector can make.
- It pays, and it pays faster than almost anyone. Independent traders repeatedly confirm receipt inside 24 hours, and the firm puts a penalty on itself, an extra 10% split, if it misses that window.
- It tells you the accounts are simulated. The Terms and the footer state plainly that no trades reach live markets and that fees are not deposits, not client funds and create no custodial relationship. Many competitors blur exactly this.
- Its thresholds are numbers, not adjectives. Where a consistency rule applies it is published as 25% or 15%, and on Instant Funding Zero it has been removed outright. A firm that publishes the number has given up the most common denial mechanic in this industry.
- The people are real and reachable. A named CEO with a verifiable public profile, a named CFO and CMO, two legal entities with full addresses and a company number.
- It engages rather than hides. It answers 79% of negative reviews, sometimes correcting the record where a complainant has no account, and it is visibly alive with a 17,000 member community and support that reviewers consistently call responsive.
What would change our mind
Specific and checkable things would move this either way.
- Upward: the pricing cards changed to show the split actually paid, 70% on Instant Funding Zero, instead of up to 100%.
- Upward: the established 2022 claim corrected, or a predecessor domain named that carries archive history back to 2022.
- Upward: the promised live payout tracker actually published, with dated, verifiable entries.
- Upward: the maximum loss rule restated unambiguously on the product card as a highest water mark measure, so buyers see it before paying.
- Downward: payout reports shifting from reduced to refused, or an indefinite payout queue appearing while the storefront keeps selling.
- Downward: the Discord going quiet, the 24 hour guarantee quietly dropped, or checkout narrowing to crypto only.
- Downward: a regulator warning naming sureleveragefunding.com, ASAP Solutions FZ-LLC or Sure Leverage Funding Ltd.
Evidence ledger
Every finding behind the verdict, with its source.
- In favour
E1The Terms state that program fees are not deposits, not investments and do not constitute customer funds, and that no customer trades are executed in live financial markets. No deposit, cashier, wallet or account-type page exists in the sitemap and no live trading server was found. This is a genuine prop firm, not a brokerage.
- In favour
E2Five separate named traders publicly documented payouts received between 10 June and 3 September 2026, including one describing a third payout with two prior ones processed. Independent, dated and attributable.
- Against
E3A Saudi trader, updated 3 September 2026, reported being paid within 24 hours but receiving $131 from $700 of profit after deductions, with $300 held back and a 15 day wait. Money arrives, but materially reduced.
- Against
E4Every pricing card advertises a profit split of up to 100% and the comparison table mocks rival firms for paying 70%, while the firm's own rules for the flagship Instant Funding Zero state 70% from the first payout onward.
- Against
E5The About page states the firm was established in 2022, but the domain was created on 9 April 2024 and the Saint Lucia entity carries company number 2025-00514. No predecessor domain carrying earlier history is named.
- Against
E6Instant Funding Zero maximum loss is defined as 4% of the initial account balance measured from the highest water mark, a contradiction in terms, while the product card shows only a 4% max loss limit. Multiple traders in September 2026 reported accounts closed on exactly this rule.
- Against
E7The Terms let the firm amend at will with continued use counting as acceptance, reserve sole discretion over what counts as a violation, and cap total liability at the program fees paid in the preceding twelve months.
- Against
E8A burst of single-review accounts posting short generic five-star praise within hours of one another, including one dated 6 September 2026 stating the reviewer has no account on the platform and asking to be given one in exchange for a review. The score fell from 4.2 to 3.7 over the same period.
- In favour
E9A valid, non-expiring Discord invite into a server of 17,175 members with 548 online, a YouTube channel with 322 videos posting within the last month, and a 79% reply rate to negative reviews. The operation is demonstrably staffed and active.
- In favour
E10Where a consistency rule applies it is published as a specific number, 25% on Instant Funding Static and 15% on the Lite payout policy, and it is removed entirely on Instant Funding Zero. The firm has given up the undefined-consistency denial mechanic common in this sector.
Official channels
Official accounts and the captures we archived.
Official channels
Audience size and the latest post we could see, captured on the review date. A prop firm usually goes quiet before it stops paying, so an inactive channel is worth noticing.
What we captured
Screenshots taken by WIKILIX on the review date. Pages change; these do not.
Questions about Sure Leverage Funding
The questions traders actually ask about this firm.
What we would do
What we would do with our own money.
This firm can be traded, but only by someone who has read the rules that are not on the pricing card.
- Read the product's Help Center article before buying, not the pricing card. The card and the rules disagree on the split, on news trading and on how drawdown is measured.
- Assume 70%, not 100%. Price your expectations on the number in the rules.
- Treat the 4% maximum loss as trailing from your equity peak, because that is what measured from the highest water mark means, and it is the single most common reason accounts here die.
- Do not trade news on Instant Funding Zero at all, and keep every trade open longer than two minutes.
- Expect deductions at payout. Reconcile the amount requested against the amount received, and keep your own trade log.
- Take the first payout early and small to test the rails before building a large balance you cannot withdraw in one cycle.
- Size your risk to the fee. Liability is capped at the fees you paid, so the fee is realistically the most you can recover if things go wrong.