A one-step challenge qualifies a trader in a single evaluation phase: reach a profit target without breaching a daily loss limit or an overall loss limit, then trade a funded account. The format gained ground on the two-step model because it shortens the distance between purchase and first payout, and because it removes the verification stage where many traders failed after effectively having already passed. Firms compensate elsewhere: tighter drawdown mechanics, a consistency rule applied at withdrawal, minimum trading days, sometimes a lower starting split.
The ranking compares these offers on our 100-point score — firm strength, trading conditions, rule fairness, payout economics and price. Targets, limits and pricing for each challenge appear in the table below, dated to the last verification.
Coming in at number 1, FTMO has been operating since 2015 and scores 88/100 on our scale. Entry starts at €79 for a 1-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a static drawdown capped at 10 %, with 3 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 90 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 14 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, expert advisors allowed, news trading allowed. Available on mt4, mt5, ctrader, dxtrade, tradingview.
Founded in Prague in 2015, FTMO reports more than $450 million paid to traders and closed its acquisition of broker OANDA in December 2025. The 2-Step challenge, static drawdown and no deadline, remains its core product, with fees fully refunded on the first payout. Price is the weak spot, and it rose again in 2026.
Ranked 2 on this list, The5ers has been operating since 2016 and scores 86/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $39 for a 2-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a static drawdown capped at 10 %, with 5 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 100 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 14 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, no consistency rule. Available on mt5, ctrader, tradingview.
Founded in Israel in 2016, The5ers is one of the oldest forex prop firms still operating. Its strongest asset is the rulebook: static drawdown across every program, no time limit and no consistency rule. The tradable universe stays narrow, though — forex, indices, metals and futures, with no crypto and no equities.
In third place, FundedNext has been operating since 2022 and scores 85/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $59.99 for a 2-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a static drawdown capped at 10 %, with 5 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 95 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 5 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, no consistency rule, expert advisors allowed. Available on mt4, mt5, ctrader, match-trader.
On the forex and CFD side, FundedNext runs just two routes: Stellar 1-Step (10% target, 6% max loss) and Stellar 2-Step (8% then 5%, 10% max loss). Both use static drawdown, carry no deadline and come with refundable fees. Pricing is on the high side, and the headline 95% split needs a paid option — the contractual base is 80%.
In 4th place, City Traders Imperium has been operating since 2018 and scores 83/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $29 on an instantly funded account. The risk envelope is a trailing intraday drawdown capped at 6 %. Funded traders keep 100 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 7 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, no consistency rule, expert advisors allowed, news trading allowed. Available on mt5, match-trader.
City Traders Imperium has funded forex traders since 2018 through four routes — 1-Step, 2-Step, Instant Funding and Direct Funding — with no time limit and entry from $29. The profit split starts at 80% and can reach 100%, but the 1-Step allows only 5% trailing drawdown and every trade must carry a stop loss.
In 5th place, FundingPips has been operating since 2022 and scores 83/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $29 for a 2-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a static drawdown capped at 6 %, with 3 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 100 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 7 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit. Available on mt5, ctrader, match-trader.
FundingPips lets you choose the withdrawal rhythm and prices the split accordingly: 60% weekly, 80% biweekly, 90% on demand, 100% on a monthly cycle. Its four evaluation models keep static drawdown, with only the instant-funding Zero account switching to trailing. Against that, a Striking System closes a funded account on the fourth warning.
In 6th place, Bulenox has been operating since 2022 and scores 81/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $145 for a 1-phase evaluation. Funded traders keep 100 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 10 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, expert advisors allowed, news trading allowed. Available on ninjatrader, rithmic, quantower.
Bulenox is a futures-only firm run from Delaware since 2022. Accounts are sold as renewable monthly subscriptions, $145 to $325 for $25,000 to $150,000, payouts clear every Wednesday, and the first $10,000 goes entirely to the trader. It holds 4.7/5 across 1,761 Trustpilot reviews, but a 40% consistency rule gates withdrawals and drives recurring complaints.
Coming in at number 7, Alpha Capital Group has been operating since 2021 and scores 80/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $27 for a 1-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a trailing (end of day) drawdown capped at 4 %, with 3 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 90 % of profits. Notable freedoms: no time limit, news trading allowed. Available on mt5, ctrader, dxtrade, tradelocker.
Alpha Capital Group is a UK forex prop firm registered in 2021, running eight programs that span a $27 two-phase challenge through to accounts funded at purchase. The rulebook is permissive — news, weekend and overnight holding allowed, four platforms — but the tradable universe stops at forex, indices and metals, and Trustpilot has suspended the rating over fake reviews.
Ranked 8 on this list, Funded Trading Plus has been operating since 2021 and scores 80/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $89 for a 1-phase evaluation. The risk envelope is a trailing intraday drawdown capped at 6 %, with 4 % allowed per day. Funded traders keep 100 % of profits. Notable freedoms: no time limit, expert advisors allowed. Available on mt5, ctrader, dxtrade, match-trader.
A London firm founded in late 2021 and bought by Instant Funding in May 2026, Funded Trading Plus pays every 7 days on its 1-Step Express and Instant programs, with the split rising from 80 to 100% and scaling up to $5 million. The catch: intraday trailing drawdown on both, and a Trustpilot score the platform has pulled.
Coming in at number 9, My Funded Futures has been operating since 2023 and scores 80/100 on our scale. The risk envelope is a trailing (end of day) drawdown capped at 4 %. Funded traders keep 90 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 1 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, news trading allowed. Available on ninjatrader, tradovate, tradingview, quantower, volumetrica.
Launched in late 2023 in Delaware, My Funded Futures posts the highest customer satisfaction in our futures database, at 4.9/5 across more than 21,000 reviews. Its four plans share a 6 % target and an end-of-day trailing drawdown that locks above the starting balance. The notable trade-off: over 80 countries are excluded.
Ranked 10 on this list, TradeDay has been operating since 2020 and scores 80/100 on our scale. Entry starts at $131 for a 1-phase evaluation. Funded traders keep 90 % of profits, with a first withdrawal available after 0 days. Notable freedoms: no time limit, news trading allowed. Available on tradovate, rithmic, ninjatrader, tradingview.
TradeDay was founded in Chicago in 2020 by two former institutional market professionals, and that background shows in the rulebook: no daily loss limit, news trading and scalping allowed, and withdrawals available from day one. The May 2026 rework dropped static drawdown accounts in favour of two paths, Quick Pay and Fast Pass.
The two-step model spreads the work out: an ambitious target in phase one, a smaller target in phase two that functions as a consistency test. A one-step challenge compresses everything into a single attempt, typically asking for 8–10% without breaching the daily loss limit along the way. The arithmetic follows: the ratio between the target and the daily buffer tightens, which pushes traders toward larger risk per trade. One bad session ends the attempt, with no gentler second phase waiting as a psychological cushion. The format shortens the road to funding; it moves the difficulty into daily risk management rather than reducing it.
How firms recover the difference
A shorter evaluation gives the firm less time to observe a trader before putting capital behind them, and that gap is almost always priced back in. The first lever is drawdown design, where a trailing threshold, often measured from the highest balance reached, replaces the static limit common in two-step products. The second is the consistency rule, frequently absent during evaluation but enforced at payout, which makes it invisible until money is requested. The third is commercial: a higher price for the same account size, or a reduced starting split that scales up later. One more item gets overlooked — funded account rules sometimes differ from evaluation rules, particularly on drawdown and news trading. Read both rulebooks, not just the challenge specification.
Getting the format right
One-step suits a trader whose method produces steady results over a few weeks and who has little patience for a second validation stage. It works well for intraday and short swing approaches with controlled risk per trade and enough positions to smooth out variance. It works poorly for slow, highly selective styles that struggle to reach a demanding target without concentrating gains into a handful of trades, which is precisely what a consistency rule penalises. A useful test before buying: sized to the daily limit on offer, would your recent trading have reached the target inside a normal month? The decision between one-step and two-step should turn on drawdown type and total cost to a first withdrawal, not on how many phases appear in the name.
Frequently asked questions
One-step or two-step: which should I choose?
One-step shortens the path to funding and fits methods that produce steady results within a few weeks. Two-step often comes with a more forgiving loss threshold and an easier second phase, which helps slower approaches. The deciding factor is not the number of phases but the drawdown type and the total cost of reaching a first realised withdrawal with each format.
Is a one-step challenge easier to pass?
It is faster, not necessarily easier. The full target must be reached in a single run with the same daily loss limit as a buffer, which tightens the risk-reward maths of the attempt. Published pass rates across the industry remain low for every format, so the meaningful advantage is time to first payout rather than probability of success.
Is there a time limit on one-step challenges?
Most offers have dropped calendar deadlines but keep a minimum number of active trading days, and often an inactivity clause that closes the account after a long period without trades. No deadline therefore does not mean no time pressure, and the inactivity clause is the one to look for in the terms before assuming you can take a break.
Do the rules change once you are funded?
Often. Drawdown can switch from one mechanism to another, a consistency rule may activate at the first withdrawal request, and news trading restrictions are sometimes stricter on the funded account than during evaluation. Read the funded account rulebook before buying the challenge, because that document, not the challenge sheet, determines whether you actually get paid.