Prop firm evaluation pass rates (estimated)
8 min read·Updated July 20, 2026
Estimate only: no firm publishes audited pass-rate data. Our model puts one-step evaluations at roughly 20%, two-step at 14.8%, and instant-funding at 0%.
This is the statistic we hedge hardest on this entire site, and we want to be explicit about why before showing a single number: no retail prop firm publishes an audited pass-rate figure, and none is required to. Any pass-rate claim you encounter anywhere — including the one below — is an estimate, and most of the ones circulating in the industry (often cited as "only 10% pass," repeated without a source) appear to be unattributed folklore rather than measured data.
Our estimate is built from evaluation mechanics rather than pulled from a claim. A two-step evaluation with a 10% first-phase target and a 5% intraday trailing drawdown is mechanically harder to clear than a one-step evaluation with an 8% target and a static drawdown, independent of trader skill, because the second scenario gives more room for a normal losing streak without disqualification. We model a base rate by evaluation structure (two-step lowest, one-step middle, instant-funding effectively 100% since there is no evaluation to fail) and adjust down for trailing drawdown and up for the absence of a consistency rule, since both mechanically change how forgiving the path to funding is.
Read the numbers below as directional, not predictive of your individual outcome. A trader with a tested strategy and strict risk management will clear any of these evaluations at a rate well above our estimate; a trader without one will clear it at a rate well below it. The estimate describes the mechanical difficulty of the product, not the skill of the person attempting it.
The clearest actionable takeaway is structural: instant-funding models exist precisely because eliminating the evaluation removes the biggest source of failed attempts, which is also why those accounts typically start smaller and scale more slowly. If you have a strategy you trust, a one-step evaluation with a static drawdown and no consistency rule is the closest thing to the "easiest realistic path" our model can identify — not because any firm designs it to be easy, but because those are the mechanically most forgiving parameters in the dataset.
| Structure | Estimated pass rate | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Instant funding (0-step) | ~0% | No evaluation to fail; funding is granted on purchase or a light initial screen |
| One-step evaluation | ~20% | Single profit target and drawdown limit to clear before funding |
| Two-step evaluation | ~14.8% | Two sequential targets compound the chance of a disqualifying drawdown breach |
| Firm | Structure | Estimated pass rate |
|---|---|---|
| The5ers | 1-step | ~23% |
| Funding Pips | 1-step | ~23% |
| Alpha Capital Group | 1-step | ~23% |
| E8 Markets | 1-step | ~23% |
| Breakout | 1-step | ~23% |
| FunderPro | 1-step | ~23% |
| The Edge Funder | 1-step | ~23% |
| FTUK | 1-step | ~23% |
| FXIFY | 1-step | ~21% |
| Lucid Trading | 1-step | ~21% |
| Goat Funded Trader | 1-step | ~21% |
| Trade The Pool | 1-step | ~21% |
Methodology & sources
- Base rate: 35% instant, 18% one-step, 12% two-step, reflecting the compounding difficulty of sequential profit targets.
- Adjustment: -3 points for intraday trailing drawdown (least forgiving), +3 for static drawdown (most forgiving).
- Adjustment: +2 points where there is no consistency rule at all, since consistency rules disqualify otherwise-passing runs.
- This is an internal model, not a survey or audited result. We publish the exact adjustments above so the estimate can be checked and challenged.
- No firm's actual pass rate is published; treat any pass-rate number you see anywhere in this industry, including ours, as an estimate.
Source data: our own 34-firm dataset, the same records used across every firm review and comparison on this site. See the statistics hub for the full methodology and cross-topic figures.
FAQ
- What percentage of traders pass a prop firm evaluation?
- There is no audited industry figure. Our modelled estimate, based on evaluation structure and drawdown mechanics rather than a survey, puts two-step evaluations around 10-15%, one-step around 15-20%, and instant-funding models near 100% since there is no evaluation to fail.
- Why doesn't any firm publish real pass-rate data?
- There's no regulatory requirement to, and a low published pass rate would be a marketing liability, so the incentive runs entirely against disclosure. We are not aware of any firm in this industry that publishes an audited pass/fail ratio.
- Is a two-step evaluation actually harder than a one-step?
- Mechanically yes in most cases — you have to clear two sequential profit targets within the same drawdown budget, which compounds the probability of a disqualifying loss along the way, independent of a trader's actual skill level.