Compare a specific prop evaluation programme and its contract version. Record its legal entity, fee, account status, loss-limit formula and reward eligibility. One brand can offer several products with different rules. The comparison below helps identify those differences; it does not rank firms or establish a probability of passing or receiving a payment.

Why a prop-firm ranking is a dead end

A retail evaluation service may charge for a challenge and offer a contractual reward if its conditions are met. Passing does not establish that you receive live firm capital: some services continue with simulated accounts. Read the contract’s account status, reward terms and legal entity before comparing headline account sizes. Related reading: broker differs from a prop firm.

A firm can change or discontinue its service. Check the current agreement and operating status, and treat the evaluation fee as money at risk. An unsourced account of industry-wide turmoil is not evidence of any particular firm’s present solvency or payout policy.

The evaluation model: one-step, two-step or instant funding

Compare the actual one-step, two-step or immediate-access agreement. Targets, loss limits, consistency rules, fees and simulated/live status differ by product. Step count alone does not establish a lower fee, tighter drawdown or smaller account.

Match the product’s actual fee, rules and reward terms to the strategy you have tested. A shorter evaluation does not automatically provide cheaper or faster access to live capital.

Profit split and fee — read the whole picture, not the headline

Read the reward percentage, fee, refund terms and payout conditions for the actual programme. A larger advertised share does not help if the result is ineligible under the contract; no current industry-wide 70–90% range is established here.

A reset can change headroom without a price move

This hypothetical daily-limit model uses balance at reset − 5,000 USD. The day's starting balance is 100,000 USD. Before the next reset, realised profit increases balance to 103,000 USD, but floating P/L is −6,000 USD. Equity is therefore 97,000 USD.

Scroll sideways to see the full diagram

A reset can change headroom without a price moveBefore reset, equity is 2,000 USD above the threshold. After reset, the same equity is 1,000 USD below the new threshold.Before reset: threshold 95,000 USDEquity 97,000 → headroom 2,000New balance snapshot: 103,000 USDNew threshold: 103,000 − 5,000 = 98,000Same equity: 97,000 USDAfter reset: 1,000 USD below threshold
Two moments have the same valuation; the limit's calculation base changes.

FTMO's documentation distinguishes balance at the daily reset from equity checked against the threshold. A reset does not erase a floating loss. Add rows before and after the day changes using the programme's specified time. Include swaps, commissions and the overall loss limit. A final profit does not prove compliance at every moment, and the same price does not guarantee the same headroom.

Example assumptions: Balance, floating loss and limit amount form a hypothetical USD scenario without additional fees. This model does not replace other programme rules. Mechanism source: FTMO: Trading Objectives.

Compare loss-limit definitions and update times

Record the daily and maximum thresholds separately. For each, identify the reference value, the distance from it, the update time and whether the threshold is tested against balance or equity. A threshold based on closed balance can still be breached by floating losses included in equity. A static starting-capital floor, a fixed distance below the peak and a percentage of the changing peak are different formulas. A contractual threshold is not a guaranteed maximum cash loss on market execution.

Hypothetical start USD 100,000 and peak USD 112,000: three threshold formulas
Static: 10% of initial capital100,000 − 10,000 = USD 90,000.
Trailing: fixed USD 10,000 below the peak112,000 − 10,000 = USD 102,000.
Trailing: 10% of the changing peak112,000 × 90% = USD 100,800.
Equity at USD 100,500Above the static floor, below both selected trailing floors. These invented formulas are not one firm's tariff or an execution guarantee.

Separate the value used to calculate a threshold from the value used to test compliance. Equity includes open P/L, which can be positive or negative, plus the costs specified in the programme. A balance-based threshold can therefore coexist with an equity test. Record resets, any ceiling on a trailing floor and the effect of a reward withdrawal. Related reading: a trader's risk management and the 2% versus 1% rule.

Trading days, the consistency rule and payout frequency

Read the applicable consistency version. FTMO’s 1-Step update applies Consistency to new orders created from 12 October 2026 at 09:00 GMT+3, its MetaTrader platform time, and to 1-Step accounts merged on or after 12 October. Best Day Rule remains for earlier orders, including subsequent accounts after passing or receiving a reward, unless the merge exception applies. Both require the best day to be no more than 50%, but Consistency divides by total realised net profit, while Best Day divides by the sum of positive daily results. Neither unmet ratio alone breaches the account; it prevents completion or reward eligibility until the condition is met.

For hypothetical closed daily P/L of +600, +400 and −500 USD, positive days total USD 1,000 and net profit is USD 500. The best day is USD 600: Best Day is 60%, while Consistency is 120%. A further +200 day leaves the best day unchanged: the ratios become 50% and about 85.71%. A subsequent +500 day gives positive days USD 1,700, net profit USD 1,200 and ratios about 35.29% and 50%. These figures include any costs already in daily P/L. They illustrate the formulas, not instructions to trade further or a promise of passing; other rules still apply.

Payout reliability and the broker behind the firm

Read the eligible result, request conditions, waiting period, review process, payment method and fees. Distinguish waiting to request a reward from processing it or receiving the transfer. In a hypothetical comparison, 80% of an eligible USD 1,000 result gives USD 800, while 90% gives USD 900. If the second programme has USD 150 more unrecovered participation cost, that difference outweighs the extra USD 100 in this single settlement. This assumes identical eligible results and both contracts being honoured; it does not compare payment probabilities. Dated third-party transfer evidence can document a particular payment, but cannot prove future solvency or that your result will qualify.

Ask whether the service is simulated or live, who operates it and how contractual rewards are funded. A simulated account does not by itself establish that every payout comes solely from other candidates’ fees. The relevant risk is the provider’s ability and obligation to pay under its agreement. Related reading: broker regulation by the KNF, choosing a forex prop firm that actually pays.

What to do before you pay for a challenge

  1. Compare actual agreements. Record the fee, targets, loss limits and simulated/live status for each product. Do not infer price from the number of evaluation steps.
  2. Define each threshold. Record its base, fixed or percentage distance, update time, balance/equity test and effect of withdrawals. If wording is unclear, obtain a written explanation and compare it with the binding contract before paying.
  3. Read reward clauses before paying the fee. Check eligibility, consistency version, trading restrictions, minimum amounts, costs, request and processing times, and how terms can change. A programme fee is not necessarily a trading deposit.
  4. Check the provider and account status. Identify the contracting entity, simulated/live status and complaint terms. A platform brand or licensed data provider does not establish protection of a contractual reward. A report of one payment is not a guarantee of another.
  5. Treat the fee as money at risk. Consider loss of access or a disputed contractual reward when deciding whether to pay; no payout record guarantees future payment.