About and method

PropValue compares prop firms by running trading strategies through each firm's actual rules, instead of comparing headline splits and discounts. Most comparison sites attempt to generate clicks by hiding the reality of trading - we do the math and show you what a prop firm account is worth if you follow a given strategy. We cover futures firms (102 accounts). The website is written and maintained by David J Kaplan.

Who's behind it

David J Kaplan is a computational scientist and futures trader who trades funded accounts with Apex and Tradeify. The rankings come from the simulation alone: some links on the site earn a commission, and none of them changes the order. See how the site makes money.

The model

Each account is simulated 2,000 times in the value finder and 12,000 times on firm and comparison pages using one trading strategy at a time. Every account is run through the same simulated trading days (common random numbers). As such, when two accounts perform differently it's because their rules differ, not because one got better trades. This keeps rankings steady: at this many runs, the gap between two accounts moves by only about $10 from one batch of simulations to the next, so accounts within $20 or so of each other are effectively tied. Every simulated day is built trade by trade (see trading strategies below), and the firm's rules are applied as the day goes.

The evaluation. Soft daily loss limits stop trading for the day; hard ones fail the account. An evaluation passes once the profit target, minimum days and consistency rule are all met within the firm's time limit or, where there is none, 60 trading days (about three months, after which most traders give up or reset). Two-step evaluations run both phases, each from a fresh balance, inside that same time. Accounts that charge a monthly fee during the evaluation stage are charged for every month the simulated evaluation runs.

Straight-to-funded accounts. Some firms offer accounts without an evaluation stage (for example LucidDirect, Tradeify Lightning, Bulenox Fast Track). These skip the evaluation entirely: every purchase starts as a funded account, so the chance of passing is 100% and the price is the entire cost. These accounts usually compensate for this instant access to capital with stricter payout rules, often a profit goal before each payout and a tight consistency rule, so whether skipping the evaluation pays depends on how evenly the strategy makes its money.

The funded account. The account is then traded for three consecutive months (63 trading days). The simulated trader takes every payout as soon as the rules allow it, for as much as the rules allow, but never so much that one bad day (their own daily stop) would blow the account. After each payout, the firm's requirements start again: the winning days, trading days and consistency rule between payouts, the cap for that payout, and the minimum. Withdrawals come out of the balance while the drawdown floor stays where it was, so taking money out leaves less room above the floor, as on a real account. Where a firm moves the floor up after a payout (Topstep resets it to the starting balance), the model does the same. Splits that change after a set amount (100% of the first $10,000, say) are applied as the total grows. Fees that a firm refunds with the first payout are added back at that point. If the account breaks a rule, the payouts already taken are kept and trading stops. Accounts that move to a live account after a set number of payouts stop being counted there.

The two numbers

Expected value per attempt is what one evaluation purchase returns on average over those three months: the chance of passing, times everything the funded account pays out after the split, minus everything spent on the way (evaluation fees, monthly renewals, activation). It is the default ranking in the value finder because it is the only number that weighs price, odds and payouts together. This is the key to PropValue. Most comparison sites list each firm's rules and leave the math to you; we rank every firm on one number, for a good but believable trader.

The chance of taking home a set amount answers the question traders ask first: how likely am I to get paid? It is the share of simulated attempts that pass and then withdraw at least the goal (after any split involved) within the three months. You choose the goal: $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000 on a 50K account, the same share of the account at other sizes, defaulting to $2,500. This puts every firm on the same footing, since a first payout can be $500 at one firm and $3,000 at another; but it says nothing about cost. Two firms can get you to $2,500 equally often while one charges more per attempt or caps every later payout, so one makes money on average and the other loses it. That is why every result shows both.

Ranks on firm and comparison pages are always within one account size: a 150K account is only compared with other 150K accounts.

How the trading strategies are modeled

A trading strategy is a handful of numbers representing the types of trades taken. Every simulated day is built from them in the same way:

1. The trader takes up to the set number of trades. Each one wins or loses at the win rate.
2. A win adds roughly the average win and a loss takes off roughly the average loss. Actual sizes vary randomly around those averages, by 20% to 60% depending on the strategy, because real trades are never identical. Both averages are after costs: commissions and slippage.
3. Some losing trades go into profit before they turn. The give-back setting controls how far, as a share of the average win. This only matters on intraday trailing drawdowns, where the floor follows that open profit up.
4. The day ends early if the trader hits their own daily stop, their profit-taking target for the day, or the firm's daily loss limit.
5. At the end of each day the firm's rules are checked: drawdown floor, profit target, minimum days and consistency during the evaluation; payout conditions once funded.

The presets are typical shapes, not real traders, and their rankings are examples of what the model does rather than verdicts on firms. A firm that ranks low for one preset can rank first for a trader whose numbers suit its rules; this is the entire point of PropValue. For the answer that matters most, choose "Enter my strategy" in the value finder and enter figures that reflect your own trading style.

How the presets were calibrated

A preset that represents a better trader will do well at every firm, and the ranking would then say more about the preset than about the firm. Thus, every preset is tuned to the same level of skill, and the strategies differ only in shape: how many trades, how often they win, and how big the wins and losses are next to each other. Whatever separates the firms for a given strategy is then down to their rules.

Skill is measured on pure edge alone without the influence of any firm rules over 25,000 simulated days per preset. We set three targets for a trader who is good but believable:

• A Sharpe ratio of 2.0. The Sharpe ratio denotes the average daily profit divided by how much daily results swing, scaled to a year. It measures how reliably someone makes money irrespective of what size they trade. A Sharpe ratio of 1 is ordinary, 2 is strong, and above 3 is incredibly rare outside very short-term professional traders. At 2.0, a trader still loses money in roughly one month in four.
• About 3% of the account in an average month.
• A daily stop no bigger than about a quarter of a typical drawdown (28% of $2,000 on a 50K futures account). A trader who can lose a third of their allowance in one day is not a careful one.

For each strategy preset, we fixed the shape first before adjusting the average win until the Sharpe ratio reached 2.0. Then we scaled every dollar figure (wins, losses, daily stops and daily targets) until we reached around 3% a month. Scaling size changes the return but not the Sharpe ratio, so skill stays fixed. Scaling stopped where the daily stop reached its cap. Strategies with small daily swings (scalper and grinder) hit the cap first and end up earning a little less a month. That is deliberate: at the same skill and the same caution, a trader whose days are smaller earns less.

These targets are our judgment, not measurements of real traders. A different skill level moves every firm's numbers up or down, so the absolute expected values matter less than how firms compare for the same strategy. The figures below are computed from the presets the site runs today.

What this means for pass rates. At this skill level, the presets pass about half of their evaluations. Real firms report far lower pass rates: Topstep says 16.8% of the Trading Combines started in 2025 were passed. This disparity is down to the trader and not the model: most people who buy an evaluation have no edge once costs and mistakes are factored in. If we run the same presets with no edge at all, they still pass about one attempt in five because most firms' profit targets and drawdowns let some luck through. As such, a pass rate doesn't say much about skill, which is why we rank by expected value primarily. If your own results are less consistent than this, enter your numbers in the value finder; firms that provide cheaper evaluations and cap your loss at the fee tend to move up.

Futures presets (50K account)

On other futures sizes the dollar figures scale with the account (×0.6 at 25K, ×1 at 50K, ×1.6 at 100K, ×2.2 at 150K), roughly in line with the extra drawdown. The news trader preset also ticks "I trade around high-impact news", which moves firms that restrict news trading to the bottom.

The presets land at a Sharpe ratio of 2.0, make 1.9% to 3.0% a month and lose money in 27% to 28% of months. Profit factors look thin, 1.09 to 1.25, and that is realistic: a strategy with many trades a day needs only a small edge on each to be consistent.

What we omit from models

• We only consider the first three months of a funded account. If you'd carry on trading after that, or switch to a live account, the take-home will be understated.
• The simulated trader always withdraws as early and as much as is allowed. Leaving more in the account would mean fewer blown accounts and smaller, later payouts.
• Trades are completely independent so we do not model streaks, tilt and increasing position size after losses.
• Every payout the rules allow is assumed to be approved and paid. Firms can refuse payouts for breaking conduct rules (some of which are listed on firm pages but not simulated) or under broad clauses about gambling-style trading.
• Resets and scaling plans are not yet included. Each size uses that size's rules, and accounts are only ranked against others of the same size.

Where the rules come from

Every firm page lists the sources used and the date we last checked the rules against the firm's own help center. Values we're still verifying are shown with a dotted underline. We check every firm's rules pages daily for changes and record them in the rule change log.

Contact

Spotted a rule we have wrong? Email hello@propvalue.co with a link to the firm's page and we'll correct it.