Prop Firm Statistics 2026: Every Number Sourced

There is no industry-wide prop firm pass rate. No regulator or official dataset publishes one, and the percentages that circulate without a source can't be checked. What does exist is narrower and more useful: four firms that publish their own outcome figures with a stated denominator, and the rules and prices that firms publish for every product they sell. This page uses only those two kinds of evidence. The firm figures keep each firm's own denominator and period. The rest we counted ourselves across 96 challenge products at 19 firms, all captured from the firms' own pages between 14 Oct 2026 and 22 Oct 2026.

How we counted

The dataset is the one behind our reviews: one record per product, with prices per account size, loss limits, drawdown type, profit split, payout timing, consistency rule, refund flag and trading-rule flags, each captured from the firm's own product, FAQ or help-centre page. For this page we kept every product captured in the last 30 days, which leaves 96 products at 19 firms. One product fell outside that window and was left out: Alpha Capital's Alpha Three, last captured on 14 Sep 2026, which the firm says is not currently offered for new purchases. Apex Trader Funding's 4 products, left out of the first version of this page because their capture was older than 30 days, were recaptured on 22 Oct 2026 and are now included. Its 2 Standard paths carry no fee in our data, because the product cards didn't show their activation fee, so they count in the rule statistics but not in the fee medians. The full product list, with a link to each source page, is in the table at the end.

Three rules govern every count below:

• We count products, not firms. A firm that sells 9 variants weighs more than one that sells 2, so where firm-level numbers tell a different story we give both.
• A blank isn't a zero. When a firm doesn't publish a value, the field stays empty in our data and appears here as "not published". It is never counted as "none". Our no-consistency-rule guide explains why that difference matters.
• List prices only. Fees are the published price before coupons. Activation fees, fees on funding and monthly renewals are shown separately, never averaged in.

What a $100K challenge costs

We took every $100K tier sold for a one-off fee and split evaluations (1 phase or more) from instant-funded accounts (no evaluation). The 54 evaluation tiers have a median list fee of $463.50. The middle half falls between $343.75 and $551.24.

The all-evaluations row also includes Maven's 2 prediction-markets products ($599 and $999), which fit none of the three asset classes. Futures sample is small, with 13 tiers at 4 firms. Lucid Trading's prices in it are list prices from the firm's own price picker, and Apex Trader Funding's are the struck-through list prices on its product cards on 22 Oct 2026; neither is a checkout total.

The cheapest sticker isn't always the cheapest account. The two lowest fees in the table come with a second charge. The5ers Bootcamp lists $95 and charges another $205 when you're funded. Crypto Fund Trader Break Challenge lists $200 plus a $328 activation fee. Add those two charges and the evaluation median moves from $463.50 to $474.50.

Weighting matters too. If you take each firm's cheapest $100K evaluation once, the median of those 13 prices is $356. That is about $108 less than the product-weighted figure, because firms like Alpha Capital, FXIFY and FundingPips sell several pricier variants. Our cheapest prop firms page ranks the lowest-cost routes.

Some $100K accounts don't fit a one-off median at all, so we list them separately and leave them out:

• Monthly subscriptions: Topstep charges $99 a month plus a $149 activation fee on its Standard Path, or $149 a month with no activation fee. Take Profit Trader charges $330 a month plus a $130 activation fee. TradeDay charges $240, $285 or $350 a month depending on the plan.
• Priced in euros: FTMO lists €540 (2-Step) and €499 (1-Step) for $100K, and €2,999 for its FTMO Instant Account, an instant account outside the instant-funding median above. BrightFunded lists €477 to €497. We don't convert currencies.
• No fee in our data: Apex Trader Funding's 2 Standard paths list an evaluation fee, but their cards didn't show the separate activation fee, so we leave their price empty rather than understate the cost.
• Pay-later: Maven Buy Now, Pay Later takes $5 now and $589 later for $100K.

Worked example: the profit you need just to get your fee back

You keep only your split of each payout, so the fee has to be divided by that split. At the overall evaluation median and an 80% split, $463.50 ÷ 0.80 = $579.38 of gross profit before you're even. That's 0.58% of a $100K balance. A futures trader at the median $267 with a 90% split needs $267 ÷ 0.90 = $296.67. On Topstep's Standard Path, one month plus activation is $99 + $149 = $248, so $248 ÷ 0.90 = $275.56. Each extra month adds $99 before any payout. Our true cost guide carries this through resets and repeat attempts.

Published pass rates: four firms, four denominators

Of the firms we track, these four publish outcome statistics on their own sites that we could read and quote on 21 Oct 2026. Each figure is self-reported and unaudited, and it describes that firm's own customers over its own period. Some count accounts and some count people. Don't average them.

Sources, all read on 21 Oct 2026:

• Topstep: the "2025 Trader Performance Statistics" paragraph at https://www.topstep.com/social-media-disclosure. The page is dated 15 Sep 2025, but the paragraph covers January to December 2025. (Topstep review)
• Tradeify: "Trader Performance Statistics (August 2025 – July 2026, calculated as of 9 August 2026)" in the disclaimer at https://tradeify.co/funded-trader-agreement, repeated on the homepage. (Tradeify review)
• Take Profit Trader: the homepage disclaimer at https://takeprofittrader.com/: "between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025, 36.22% of all Trading Tests were successfully passed". (Take Profit Trader review)
• My Funded Futures: the homepage at https://myfundedfutures.com/, which introduces the figures with "During the applicable measurement period". A page titled "Trading Performance for December 2025" lists the same 4 figures, but neither page states the measurement period, so we don't attach a date to them. (My Funded Futures review)

How to read a pass rate

Tradeify shows why the denominator is the whole story. Over the same 12 months, 17.2% of its evaluation accounts passed, yet 40.3% of the people buying them passed at least once, and the median participant started 3 evaluations. The per-account figure tells you the odds on one purchase; the per-person figure tells you the odds over a run of retries you pay for. Topstep's 16.8% and 51.8% split the same way.

The gotcha sits one step further on. Passing gets you a funded account, not a payout. Topstep's own figures say 33.3% of people at its Funded Level received a payout in 2025, and Tradeify's figure is 28.5%. Don't multiply the pass rate by the payout rate to get one "success" number. The groups overlap differently (someone funded in 2024 can be paid in 2025), and neither firm publishes how many attempts or how much money each person spent. Take Profit Trader also still shows an older figure in its FAQ: 20.37% of "currently registered users" passed a test between 1 Jan and 31 Aug 2023. That's a different period and a different denominator from its 2025 figure, so we don't compare the two. Our profitability guide turns these outcomes into a net-cash test.

How fast the first payout can come

"First payout" here means the earliest point at which a funded account may request money, as each firm publishes it. Firms don't use one unit: some futures plans count trading days (TradeDay's Quick Pay, for example), FundedNext's Stellar Lite counts business days, and others count calendar days. We haven't converted between them, so read the groups as approximate.

The split follows asset class. 21 of 28 futures products allow on-demand requests once their conditions are met, while bi-weekly is the most common cycle for CFD products (26 of 57). Across the whole set, 39 products are on demand, 33 bi-weekly, 6 monthly and only 6 weekly by default (Apex Trader Funding's 4 products, FundedNext Stellar 1-Step and FundingPips 2 Step Pro). For 12, no standard cycle is published. Several other firms sell weekly payouts as a paid add-on or unlock them at a loyalty tier, which our weekly payouts guide covers. In every case, the request date isn't the day money arrives: each firm still reviews the payout and runs KYC first.

Profit splits: 80% is the default, 90% is mostly futures

55 of 96 products start at an 80% base split. 18 start at 90%, and 15 of those are futures products. Lower bases mostly appear on instant or fast-payout plans: 5 products at 70%, 4 at 50% (including TradeDay Quick Pay and City Traders Imperium Instant Funding) and 2 at 75% (The5ers' Pro Growth and Hyper Growth). One product, FundingPips Zero, starts at 95%, and Apex Trader Funding's 4 products pay 100% of approved payouts. 7 products have no single base split because the firm ties it to a payout option you choose later.

Drawdown and consistency rules by market

The two markets have opposite defaults. Most CFD products (39 of 57) use a static maximum loss: the floor is set from the starting balance and never moves. No futures product we track does. 23 of 28 trail the account's end-of-day high, and the other 5 trail intraday. On a trailing floor the limit rises with your high-water mark, so profit you give back eats into the room you have left. Our drawdown guide works through the mechanics.

Consistency rules split the same way. 23 of 28 futures products publish one. The exceptions are My Funded Futures Builder and Apex Trader Funding's 4 products, whose evaluation has no consistency rule, although Apex's funded Performance Account applies a 50% payout-consistency test that our evaluation field doesn't record. Every product at Lucid Trading, Take Profit Trader, Topstep, TradeDay and Tradeify carries one. On the CFD side, only 18 of 57 publish a percentage, and at BrightFunded, City Traders Imperium, FundedNext and OFP Funding no product in our capture publishes one at all. That still isn't proof that no rule exists, as explained above. Where a percentage is published, it ranges from 15% to 55% (Topstep's Combine). 40% is the most common, on 14 products. The rule can apply in the evaluation, at the funded stage or both, and a 40% rule means no single day may make up more than 40% of the profit it measures. Our consistency rule guide shows how each version is calculated.

EAs and news trading: conditional is the norm

Our data marks a rule "allowed" only when the firm allows it without conditions. Conditions such as pre-approval, a platform exclusion or a blackout window put it under "conditional". By that test:

• Expert advisors (automated trading bots): 8 products allow them outright (Lucid Trading's 7 and City Traders Imperium 1-Step), 63 allow them with conditions, 22 ban them and 3 don't say. FXIFY's phase challenges, for example, need pre-approval and never allow EAs on DxTrade.
• News trading: 29 products allow it outright, 63 restrict it (typically a no-trade window around high-impact releases; FTMO's restriction, for example, applies only on funded Standard accounts, per its homepage FAQ), 1 bans it (FundingPips Zero) and 3 don't say.

"Conditional" covers rules that range from a one-off approval email to a ban on specific strategies, so it isn't a green light. If you run an EA or trade releases, read the rule for the exact product and platform before you buy.

Fee refunds: mostly a CFD perk

27 of 96 products refund the evaluation fee on every account size, usually with the first or a later reward once you're funded. They sit at 7 firms: BrightFunded, FTMO, FundedNext, FXIFY, Maven, OFP Funding and The5ers. 52 products refund nothing, and for 17 the firm either doesn't say or the answer differs by size. Futures mostly don't: only The5ers' 2 futures evaluations refund the fee, once you receive your third payout. 22 of the 28 futures products refund nothing (Tradeify's agreement, for example, calls every fee "strictly non-refundable"), and Apex Trader Funding doesn't say for its 4.

The refund flag can change within a single firm at the same price. FXIFY Two Phase Standard and FXIFY Two Phase Classic both list $549 for $100K; Standard refunds the fee with the first payout and Classic refunds nothing. A refund also only arrives if you pass and get paid. Nothing comes back from a failed attempt. Our FXIFY review covers the product-by-product refund rules.

Payout totals the firms publish

FTMO's homepage states "$650M+ Paid in rewards" and "4.5M+ Customers worldwide" (https://ftmo.com/en/, page last modified 20 Oct 2026, read 21 Oct 2026). Both are cumulative, self-reported marketing figures. They have no period breakdown, no count of how many customers were paid and no independent audit. Dividing one by the other wouldn't give an average payout, because "customers" includes everyone who ever bought a challenge or used the platform. We haven't built an industry total: totals compiled by third-party aggregators don't meet this page's sourcing rule.

Closures and rule changes we've logged

Our closed prop firms list currently holds 4 firms recorded as closed and 1 recorded as offline, sources checked 20 Oct 2026. A firm goes on the list only when the firm itself, a regulator or a court says it closed. Press-only claims are marked with the outlet that reported them. That's a record of documented cases, not a count of every firm that has shut down. The circulating estimates of how many firms closed in a given year publish no counting method, so we don't repeat them.

Rules move faster than closures. Since 27 Jul 2026, our challenge changes log has recorded 34 entries across 15 of the firms on this page:

• 10 verified rule changes, for example Topstep's Combine consistency target rising from 50% to 55% (observed 6 Oct 2026) and Take Profit Trader cutting new Test minimum days to three.
• 13 source conflicts, where a firm's own pages disagree with each other. 10 were still open at the last check.
• 8 price watches and 3 lineup changes (products added or withdrawn).

Thirteen cases of a firm's pages contradicting each other is the clearest argument for reading the exact product page on the day you buy, not a summary written last quarter, including this one.

What we left out, and why

Some numbers often repeated about the industry are missing here on purpose. We left them out because we couldn't trace them to a firm's own disclosure, a regulator or an official dataset on 21 Oct 2026:

• An "industry" pass rate. No firm, regulator or official dataset publishes one, and the four firm figures above don't average into one.
• An industry-wide share of funded traders who get paid. Only firm-level figures exist (33.3%, 28.5% and 39.2% above).
• Industry payout totals and on-chain payout estimates. These are compiled by aggregators and trade media from firm-supplied or wallet data, not published by the firms or a regulator.
• Counts of firms that closed in a year, and of active firms worldwide. The directory counts we found each define "active" their own way and don't agree, and the closure estimates publish no method.
• Platform market share (for example, MetaTrader 5's share of accounts). We couldn't find the vendor's own publication of it.

Sources behind our own figures

Every product counted above, grouped by firm, with a link to the firm page each record was captured from and the capture date. Prices and rules change. If a figure here disagrees with the firm's page on the day you read it, the firm's page wins, and our corrections log records what we fix.

FAQ

What percentage of traders pass a prop firm challenge?

No industry-wide figure exists. Four firms publish their own: 16.8% of Topstep Trading Combines started in 2025 were completed, 17.2% of Tradeify evaluation accounts passed between Aug 2025 and Jul 2026, 36.22% of Take Profit Trader Trading Tests passed in 2025, and 19.97% of My Funded Futures evaluation participants advanced (period not stated). Counted per person, not per account, Topstep's rate rises to 51.8% and Tradeify's to 40.3%.

How much does a $100K prop firm challenge cost in 2026?

The median list fee across 54 one-off $100K evaluation tiers at 13 firms is $463.50. CFD evaluations have a median of $477 and futures $267. Monthly-subscription futures plans, euro-priced plans and pay-later plans are listed separately, and activation fees are extra.

How many funded traders actually get a payout?

Among firms that publish it: 33.3% of Topstep's funded-level participants in 2025, 28.5% of Tradeify's between Aug 2025 and Jul 2026, and 39.2% of My Funded Futures' (period not stated). Each counts individuals at its own funded stage, so the three can't be combined into one rate.

Do prop firms refund the challenge fee?

Mostly not. 27 of the 96 products we track refund the fee on every account size, all at 7 firms that mainly sell CFD challenges, and only after you're funded and paid. Only 2 of the 28 futures products refund it: The5ers' 2 futures evaluations, after the third payout.

Is static or trailing drawdown more common?

It depends on the market. 39 of 57 CFD products use a static maximum loss, while all 28 futures products use a trailing one, 23 of them measured at the end of the day. Across all 96 products, 43 are static, 27 trail intraday, 25 trail at end of day and 1 doesn't say.

How often do prop firms pay out?

On-demand is the most common cycle (39 of 96 products), driven by futures firms, followed by bi-weekly (33), monthly (6) and weekly (6). The earliest first request ranges from the same day to 30 days, and 29 products don't publish a fixed first-request date.

Before you quote any number from this page, check its row: the denominator, the period and the date we read it. Then open the firm's own page and confirm it still says the same thing.