Comparing prop firms: the criteria that matter

Models vary: a two-phase challenge (evaluation then verification), a single phase, or an “instant funding” account with no evaluation. Fewer phases = faster access, but often stricter risk rules or a less favorable profit split.

The right model depends on your consistency: a stable system clears two phases easily; a more explosive style sometimes prefers a single phase to limit time exposure.

This is THE decisive criterion. Compare the maximum daily loss (computed on equity, open positions included) and the maximum total drawdown. Above all, tell a STATIC drawdown (fixed threshold) from a TRAILING one (which follows your gains upward): the latter is far more constraining.

A trailing drawdown can knock you out after a nice gain followed by a simple pullback. Read the fine print: two firms both advertising “10% drawdown” can have radically different rules.

Compare the challenge price (often refunded on the first payout), the profit split (frequently 80/20 to 90/10 in your favor), payout frequency and any hidden fees. A cheaper challenge with a bad split can cost more long-term.

Also check the side rules: profit target, minimum trading days, possible bans on holding through news or over the weekend. A seemingly minor rule can be incompatible with your strategy.

There's no best prop firm in the absolute. A news scalper avoids firms that ban news; a swing trader checks overnight and weekend fees; a system with moderate drawdowns survives a trailing drawdown better.

The only way to decide: replay your strategy applying each firm's exact rules and see which you'd have passed. GetBacktest's Prop Firm simulator (/en/outils/prop-firm) does this before you pay for any challenge.