Pass Your Prop Firm Challenge. Get Funded for a Flat $220.

The economics of prop trading are brutal in a way most new traders do not fully appreciate until they have felt it personally. A trader can hold a genuinely profitable edge on a demo account and still blow an evaluation, because the challenge format punishes the exact behaviours that produce long-term returns. It rewards the opposite: extreme caution, small consistent gains, and a near-obsessive focus on never touching a limit.

Consider what a typical two-step evaluation actually demands. You must reach a profit target — often 8% or 10% — inside a fixed window. You must not lose more than a small percentage in a single day, which rules out the position sizing most people use. You must not breach an overall drawdown limit that, at the stricter firms, trails your peak, meaning that the moment you start winning, your buffer shrinks. At several firms, you must also satisfy a consistency rule that caps how much of your total profit can come from any single day. And you must trade for a minimum number of days, whether or not the trades are good.

Every one of those constraints is a rule, not a market condition. That is the crucial insight. A losing trade is a market outcome you can analyse and learn from. A breached daily loss limit is an administrative failure — a decision to hold one position too long, or to size one contract too many — and it ends the evaluation instantly regardless of how good your overall thesis was. When we review the evaluations clients bring to us, the overwhelming majority of failures are rule breaches, not bad analysis.

The mismatch that creates the whole industry

There is a structural reason for this. Prop firms make money from evaluation fees, and an evaluation that almost everyone passes is not commercially viable. The rules are therefore calibrated to be genuinely hard — hard enough that the majority of attempts fail. That is not a criticism; it is simply the business model, and it means the challenge is deliberately more difficult to clear than the funded account that follows it. Once you have a funded account at many firms, the daily loss limits relax, the drawdown stops trailing, and payouts become the focus. The hardest part of the journey is the gate.

That gap between "can trade" and "can clear the gate" is the entire reason a challenge-passing service exists. If you already understand how markets move but keep getting stopped out by the evaluation's guardrails — or if you simply do not have the hours to grind a $100,000 target across three weeks of screen time — outsourcing the pass is a rational economic decision, not a shortcut or a cheat. You pay a fixed fee, receive a funded account, and keep every dollar of the profit split.

What it costs to keep failing

It is worth putting a number on the alternative. A mid-sized forex challenge at a well-known firm costs somewhere between $300 and $600. A futures evaluation can run $50 to $400 depending on size and promotions. If your realistic pass rate on a strict firm is 30%, you should expect to buy roughly three evaluations before one succeeds — so the true cost of self-passing is not the sticker price, it is roughly triple it, plus every month of your time spent on attempts that ended in a rule breach rather than a lesson.

Set that against a single flat fee of $220, with retries covered on accounts we manage, and the arithmetic becomes uncomfortable: for many traders the "cheap" self-traded route costs several times more than the service. We are not pretending the decision is right for everyone — there is real value in passing a challenge yourself, and we say so plainly further down this page — but the cost comparison deserves to be made honestly rather than assumed.

What we need from you

Very little, which is part of the point. We need the firm name, the evaluation product and account size, and secure access to the evaluation account itself. You do not need to install anything, sign up for any third-party platform, or change how you trade. We also ask you to confirm that you have read your firm's terms regarding third-party trading, because we are not going to hide that consideration from you.

What you get back

A funded account in your name, control of your own payouts, and a first-withdrawal plan. Nothing is retained by us and no ongoing relationship is required — though most clients come back when they want a second or third account, either to scale up or to diversify across firms so that no single firm's rule change can disrupt them.

How long it actually takes

Most one-step and two-step evaluations are completed within three to fifteen trading days. The variables are the profit target, whether the firm imposes a minimum number of trading days, and whether a consistency rule must be satisfied before payout. A firm that requires ten qualifying days cannot be passed in three, no matter how good the trader — and any provider claiming otherwise is either misrepresenting the firm's rules or planning to breach them, which puts your account at risk.

For an instant-funding or one-step product with no minimum days, a pass in three to five sessions is realistic. For a two-step challenge with a trailing drawdown and a consistency requirement, plan for two to three weeks. We tell you which category your target falls into before you pay, not after.

The trial is deliberately not a simplified demo. We load your firm's real numbers into the demo account: the same profit target, the same daily loss limit, the same overall or trailing drawdown, the same minimum trading days and the same consistency percentage. If your firm asks for 10% on a $100,000 evaluation, the demo starts at $100,000 and we trade to $10,000 of profit under that firm's actual limits. What you watch is precisely what we would do on a live evaluation — only on an account that costs you nothing and cannot touch your balance.

That matters, because the worry most traders bring to us is not about the market — it is about us. Will they respect the drawdown? Will they oversize and breach a rule? Will they go quiet if it turns against them? A demo run answers all three before any money changes hands, and it is the fairest way we can prove the service to someone who is not yet sure.

Beyond those, we also cover Bulenox, Tradify, TFT, Goat Funded Trader, Alpha Capital Group, Audacity Capital, ThinkCapital, Funded Engineer, City Traders Imperium, BrightFunded, Lux Trading Firm, FundedPrime, Earn2Trade, TradeDay and TickTickTrader. Our prop firm passing service page lists the full set, and the FAQ explains how we decide which firms to accept.

We are deliberately selective. A passed challenge is worthless if the firm behind it never pays out, so we verify payout history, rule clarity and dispute handling before adding a firm. We decline firms whose terms make third-party trading unambiguously impossible, and we are cautious with brand-new firms running aggressive marketing without a payment track record.

If you have the screen time and you can internalise the drawdown discipline, passing your own challenge is cheaper and genuinely instructive. We publish free, detailed guides for exactly that — start with the complete guide to passing a prop firm challenge and the consistency rule breakdown.

If, on the other hand, you have failed the same rule three times, or you are a part-time trader who simply cannot be at the screen during the hours the setup appears, the service converts a recurring frustration into a one-off transaction. That is the honest framing: we are not better traders than you — we are specialists in the specific administrative game the evaluation requires, and we do it every day.

The industry has expanded so quickly that the quality range is now enormous. At one end sit firms with a decade of published payouts, clear rulebooks and a support team that resolves disputes in days. At the other are marketing operations that exist primarily to sell evaluation fees, where the withdrawal process is engineered to be just difficult enough that a meaningful share of traders give up before being paid. Passing a challenge at the first kind of firm builds a career. Passing one at the second wastes both your money and your time.

The problem is that the two look identical from the outside. Both have slick websites, both advertise large account sizes, both have testimonials. The difference only becomes visible when you ask the right questions, and the right questions are mostly about money leaving the firm rather than entering it.

The five questions to ask before you buy any evaluation

1. How long has the firm actually been paying?

   Ask for the payout history, not the marketing. A firm that has been operating for several years with publicly documented withdrawals is a fundamentally different risk to one launched last quarter. Longevity is the cheapest proxy for reliability that exists in this market.

2. What exactly is the drawdown, and does it trail?

   Static, intraday and trailing drawdowns change the difficulty of an evaluation enormously. A trailing drawdown on a large account is a much harder proposition than a static one, and firms are not always forthcoming about which they use.

3. What is the consistency rule, and when does it bite?

   Some firms apply no consistency test during the evaluation but enforce one at payout. That is the most dangerous configuration, because it lets you pass quickly and then blocks your first withdrawal. Know the rule before you trade, not after.

4. How long does a payout actually take?

   Ask about the cycle, the payment methods and the processing time in practice, not in theory. Two weeks of delay on every payout materially changes the value of a funded account.

5. What happens when there is a dispute?

   A firm's character is revealed entirely in how it handles a contested payout. Firms with clear appeal processes and responsive support are worth a higher fee than firms that go quiet when money is at stake.

How firms differ on the things that matter

The table below summarises how the main categories of firm differ on the parameters that decide whether a funded account is genuinely valuable.

This is exactly the research we do before we agree to take on a firm. We decline evaluations at firms we would not trade ourselves, because a passed challenge at a firm that does not pay is not a result — it is a liability with our name on it. Our reasoning on individual firms is published across the blog and in the 2026 prop firm comparison.

Why these mistakes are so persistent

Every one of these errors is a natural behaviour in a different context. Letting a winner run is correct on a personal account, where there is no trailing floor to respect. Recovering a losing day quickly is correct when you have unlimited time to make it back. Sizing up when you are confident is correct when the only capital at risk is your own. The evaluation format inverts the incentives, and experienced traders are more likely to make these mistakes than beginners, precisely because they have practiced the opposite habits profitably.

That is the real insight behind a passing service. It is not that professional passers know something you do not about the market. It is that they are unlearning nothing — they trade the rulebook as a first-class constraint rather than as an afterthought, because that is the only job they have.

How to avoid all six

Write three numbers on a card and keep it beside your screen: the daily loss limit, the trailing threshold and the consistency percentage. Before every trade, size against the daily limit. Before taking profit, ask whether holding risks the trailing floor. Before requesting a payout, calculate your best day as a percentage of total profit. Those three habits, applied relentlessly, would prevent the large majority of evaluation failures we see — and they cost nothing.

A service is a good fit if…

• You have traded profitably but repeatedly break one specific rule — usually the daily limit or the trailing drawdown.
• You trade part-time and the setups you rely on occur during hours you cannot watch the screen.
• You want to run several accounts across different firms and lack the time to manage each evaluation individually.
• You value certainty: a fixed fee and a covered retry is worth more to you than a variable, open-ended cost.
• You are starting a funded-trading business and want to compress the runway from decision to live account.

A service is probably the wrong choice if…

• You have never traded an evaluation before and need to learn the format. Passing without understanding it leaves you unable to manage the funded account.
• Your priority is strict compliance with your firm's terms. Third-party trading may breach them, in which case self-passing is the correct answer.
• You already pass challenges reliably. The economics clearly favour doing it yourself.
• You want someone to trade the funded account too — that is not what we do, because the account is yours.

If you are in the first group, our prop firm passing service page explains the process. If you are in the second, start with our free guide to passing a prop firm challenge and the profit calculator — you may find you do not need us at all.