An advertised account size may refer to simulated funds rather than money transferred into your trading account. Read the actual evaluation agreement, fees, refund conditions and reward rules before paying. There is no universal promise of live capital or a non-refundable fee across all products.

Start with the goal: funding or marketing gimmick?

Establish what the agreement sells: evaluation access, simulated trading or another service. Review published financial information where available, but do not infer the provider’s revenue mix or failure rate from a profit-split advertisement. Your fee is at risk if the contractual conditions are not met.

Understand what you are actually buying: a simulated account plus a contract

FTMO describes its trading as simulated and rewards as contractual payments in real money subject to the agreement. That example does not establish the model of most firms. Check the precise service and account status of every provider you consider.

A simulated evaluation agreement is different from a client investment account. Identify the legal entity, service and jurisdiction before assuming a particular licensing, segregation or compensation regime applies—or that all relevant oversight and remedies are absent. Related reading: supervised, regulated broker, how a broker differs from a prop firm.

Read the rulebook for traps, not promises

Before paying, identify the contracting entity and product, then retain the applicable rules and purchase confirmation. Read loss thresholds, consistency conditions, trading restrictions and reward eligibility together. Distinguish a breach that ends access from a condition that must still be met. An ambiguous reference to prohibited trading needs clarification in the binding agreement.

Four conditions to identify in a specific programme
Loss thresholdReference value, fixed or percentage distance, update time and balance/equity test.
Consistency conditionNumerator, denominator, version and whether it delays eligibility or ends access.
Trading restrictionsPermitted events, overnight/weekend positions and the relevant account stage.
Reward eligibilityDefined exclusions, request procedure, deductions and dispute route.

In the hypothetical percentage-of-peak model, USD 108,000 × 95% sets a USD 102,600 threshold; equity of USD 102,400 breaches it. That illustrates path dependence, not an industry breach rate. Read the actual daily, overall, news and consistency rules together. Related reading: how to spot a dishonest operator.

Results, approval and receipt are different evidence

A positive dashboard field does not prove that a reward was received. Build a document chain: a result meeting the agreement’s rules, a decision on the request, payment-sending confirmation, and the recipient’s actual bank credit. Each stage answers a different question.

Scroll sideways to see the full diagram

Results, approval and receipt are different evidenceDashboard result, approval, sending confirmation and bank credit are four distinct pieces of evidence for successive stages. Do not substitute the first for the last.1. Dashboard resultDoes it meet this stage’s rules?2. Request and approvalWhat amount was approved?3. Sending confirmationWhat is the payment identifier?4. Bank creditDo recipient, currency and amount match?
Our evidence-reconciliation sequence gives no payment or timing guarantee.

FTMO describes a request, account review and approval before sending a reward. For the selected firm, keep dates and case numbers from the same account. If the status says “sent” but the bank shows no credit, request the payment identifier and confirm the recipient. A profit screenshot does not explain the gap. An earlier payment proves that particular transaction, rather than guaranteeing another one. Keep received documents for reporting the actual reward as well.

Example assumptions: No hypothetical payment is attributed to a firm. This sequence organises documents rather than assessing solvency. Methods and conditions depend on the agreement. Process source: FTMO: How do I withdraw my reward?.

Check the payout track record and real trader reviews

Documented prior payments can support that particular events occurred, but cannot guarantee future solvency or your reward eligibility. For each report, identify the entity, programme, date and evidence; repeated descriptions may indicate a problem worth investigating without forming a representative failure rate. Financial statements concern a specified entity and period, not necessarily current cash or the party to your contract. A known platform or data partner does not guarantee the reward.

Check the entity, jurisdiction and current contract

A simulated account plus a contract means you carry counterparty risk: the firm may interrupt service or fail to pay a contractual reward. Check the legal entity, applicable contract, termination clauses and payment history. A regulator's allegation is not a final court finding. For example, the CFTC's 2023 action against Traders Global Group must be read alongside the later proceedings: in May 2025 the agency acknowledged a court report concerning sanctions for its own misconduct. That procedural history does not establish that every prop firm is either fraudulent or safe. Assess the actual firm and agreement rather than relying on an isolated headline.

Identify the company, governing law, complaint route and enforceability of the contract. An unfamiliar jurisdiction or a promotional discount alone does not prove that claims are impossible or that the firm lacks cash for rewards.

Set a total budget for fees and further attempts

Treat the evaluation fee as an amount you can lose. Check any refund condition and estimate retry costs using your own explicitly stated assumptions; no pass rate or probability of reaching payouts is established by this article. Related reading: foundations of risk management, real costs of trading.

What to do before you pay — five steps

Use these steps to organise your documents and budget. They cannot guarantee that the provider honours its agreement or that a dispute is resolved in your favour.

  1. Define the goal in writing. In one sentence, why you want this account. If the answer is "fast money with no capital", stop here.
  2. Check programme, version and stage. An evaluation FAQ for product Beta does not establish the rules of Alpha, and reward terms do not automatically describe evaluation. Confirm whether a newer version applies to your earlier purchase; keep the accepted rules and date.
  3. Reconcile reward evidence. A dashboard result, accepted request, approval, sending confirmation and recipient bank credit prove different steps. A “request received” status does not prove payment, and a prior payment does not guarantee the next one.
  4. Identify the responsible entity and remedies. Record the company, governing law, complaint contact and applicable dispute route. Company registration is not an investment licence; an affiliated broker’s licence does not automatically cover a paid evaluation contract.
  5. Set a budget for all attempts. A hypothetical PLN 1,200 budget pays for three PLN 400 attempts if there are no other costs; after three failures it cannot fund a fourth. Check refunds, subscriptions and add-ons. Past fees do not justify exceeding the budget. Replay your own trades under the relevant rules; no universal two-week test establishes success odds.

If the contracting entity or applicable rules cannot be established, postponing payment is reasonable. Clear documents support an informed decision; they do not prove that a provider can always pay. Preserve your agreement, invoices, transaction history with timestamps and full complaint correspondence without publicly exposing personal data. The choosing-a-broker guide on ForexMechanics discusses related checks for intermediaries.