Prop Firm Pass Rates: Per Attempt vs Per Trader
Published pass rates run from 5% to 51.8% because they measure different things. Who publishes what, with the period and the denominator next to every figure.
Published pass rates run from 5% to 51.8%, and not because someone is lying: they measure different things. The same firm, in the same year, reports 16.8% per attempt and 51.8% per trader (Topstep, 2025 Combines, from the prop firm transparency report published by rswebsols in 2026). The largest dataset cited by round-ups is FPFX Technology's, over 300,000 accounts across 10 firms: 14% of accounts passed and about 7% of traders with at least one payout, a 2025 figure not read at its primary source. Before comparing two pass rates, look at the denominator.
The same trader counts once, or three times
Picture someone who buys three challenges in a year at the same firm and gets funded on the third. How many passed? Count the accounts bought and it is one in three: 33%. Count the people who tried and it is one in one: 100%. No trick in between — the same story divided by two different denominators.
That is the whole reason you see numbers differing by three or four times. Firms that want to look accessible publish the per-trader rate; sceptical round-ups use the per-attempt one; and almost nobody writes which of the two is next to the number.
None of the four numbers is wrong. But only numbers in the same column can be compared with each other, and neither answers the question you are actually asking: with my strategy, on this set of rules, what are my odds?
Who publishes what, with the period and the denominator
This is the table missing everywhere else. Every row carries the publisher, the period it refers to, what sits in the denominator, and whether the figure is declared by someone with an interest in it. Where the source does not state a period, the cell says so instead of inventing one.
| Publisher | Figure | Period | Denominator | Self-reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPFX Technology | 14% | 2025 | over 300,000 accounts across 10 firms | yes · not read at source |
| FPFX Technology | about 7% | 2025 | traders who ever received a payout | yes · not read at source |
| Topstep | 16.8% | Combines started in 2025 | evaluation accounts bought | yes |
| Topstep | 51.8% | 2025 | people who started at least one Combine | yes |
| Tradeify | 17.2% | 2025 | evaluation accounts bought | yes |
| Tradeify | 40.3% | 2025 | people who tried | yes |
| FundedNext | 24.8% | not stated by the source | phase 1 to phase 2 | yes |
| FundedNext | 43.2% | not stated by the source | phase 2 to funded account | yes |
| Take Profit Trader | 20.37% | January-August 2023 | one-step accounts | yes · not read at source · older data |
| Swiset | 20.3% vs 11.8% | not stated by the source | one-step accounts vs two-step accounts | no · aggregator |
| Industry round-ups | 8.89% - 36.22% | not stated by the source | range across firms publishing their own figure | yes, firm by firm |
| Industry guides | 5% - 15% | 2024-2025 | first attempt, estimate rather than measurement | no · estimate |
Sources: the rswebsols prop firm transparency report (2026) and the BestPropFirms, il.ly and Fortunly round-ups. Rows marked "not read at source" rest on a summary of search results: the two pages aggregating firm disclosures (forexop and TradersSecondBrain) block automated reading with a 403 error, and no primary FPFX Technology publication was found.
What we could not verify
We write it here in plain sight instead of hiding it in a footnote. The two pages collecting firm-by-firm disclosures — forexop and TradersSecondBrain — answer with a 403 error and could not be read. The figures resting on those two pages (among them Take Profit Trader's 20.37% and Topstep's 16.8%, the latter also carried by the rswebsols report) therefore come from a summary of search results, not from the page itself.
And FPFX Technology's 14%, the most quoted number in the whole field, has no traceable primary publication: every round-up carries it by citing another round-up. That does not make it false; it means anyone repeating it, this page included, is repeating a second-hand figure.
The funnel: from purchase to first payment
Passing the evaluation is not the finish line, it is the second of four steps. These four percentages come from different publishers and do not describe the same group of people: lined up, they still give the shape of the path, which is all that matters here.
- 100% buy the evaluationthe starting point
- 24.8% pass the first phaseFundedNext, period not stated, self-reported
- 10.7% reach the funded accountderived from the two FundedNext figures, 24.8% × 43.2%
- 7% receive at least one payoutFPFX Technology, 2025, not read at primary source
The surprising step is the last one. Between getting the account and actually being paid, more people drop out, and not for the same reasons: there you no longer fail the evaluation, you stall on minimum days, on the consistency rule or on identity checks at withdrawal.
One phase or two: does it really change things?
Swiset reports 20.3% of accounts funded on one-step challenges against 11.8% on two-step ones, without stating the period. The gap is real and large, but it does not mean one phase is easier all else equal: a single phase usually comes with a higher target or a tighter floor. Across the 415 accounts we compare, 310 are single-phase, from 17 firms out of 17: single phase is no longer a niche, it is the standard.
On the $100,000 accounts we compare, the median first-phase target is 6% of the capital and the maximum loss 4.5%. That ratio — how much you must make against how much you may lose — decides your odds far more than the number of phases.
Why an average pass rate is not your pass rate
An industry pass rate puts in the same bucket people risking 5% a trade and people risking 0.25%, people trading the news and people avoiding it, people with a written strategy and people improvising. The average describes none of them. It is like asking for the average human 100 metres time to work out your own.
The two variables that move the result most are risk per trade and the type of loss floor. The same strategy, on the same capital, with a static drawdown or with one trailing your equity minute by minute, gives very different outcomes.
A benchmark anyone can redo: the Validator
The best Italian piece on this topic publishes a 200,000-path Monte Carlo simulation of a trader with no edge and uses it as a yardstick, but does not publish the script: the result cannot be reproduced. The Validator does the same thing the other way round: a Monte Carlo simulator running on the real rules of the 415 verified accounts from 17 firms, with method, parameters and presets written next to the result. You can change them and redo the sum.
The number the Validator returns is the share of simulated paths in which that strategy, at that risk, would reach the target without touching the loss floor. It is not the share of traders who pass that challenge and must never be read as one: it is a probability calculation on the rules, not an observation of the market or of a firm's customers.
How to read a pass rate in ten seconds
- Look for the denominator: accounts bought or people? If it is not stated, the number is worthless.
- Look for the period. A 2023 figure describes rules that have almost certainly changed since.
- Look at who publishes it. Almost all of them are self-reported by whoever sells the challenges.
- Check whether it is about passing the evaluation or being paid: those are very far apart.
- Then drop the average and work out your own, with your strategy and your risk.
One last thing about the cost of getting this sum wrong. On the $100,000 accounts we compare, the median coupon price is $250: if your real probability is one in four rather than one in two, the expected cost of reaching a funded account doubles. That is why a pass rate is not a statistical curiosity, it is a line in your budget.
Work out yours in the Validator › · The real cost of a prop firm ›
Frequently asked questions
What percentage of traders actually pass a prop firm challenge?
There is no single number, and anyone giving you one is hiding the real question: how many of what? The largest dataset cited by industry round-ups is FPFX Technology's, over 300,000 accounts across 10 firms, at 14% of accounts passed and roughly 7% of traders ever receiving a payout; that is a 2025 figure reported second-hand, since no primary FPFX publication was found. Firms that publish their own rate range from 8.89% to 36.22% per account, and reach 51.8% when they count people instead of attempts.
What is the difference between a per-attempt and a per-trader pass rate?
A per-attempt rate divides accounts passed by accounts bought: buy three challenges and pass one and you count as 33%. A per-trader rate divides people who reached a funded account by people who tried: the same story counts as 100%. In the prop firm transparency report published by rswebsols in 2026, Topstep reports 16.8% of Combines started in 2025 and passed, and 51.8% of the people who started at least one that year; Tradeify reports 17.2% per account against 40.3% per person.
Is it true that only 5-10% pass?
That is the range industry guides repeat for the first attempt, referring to 2024-2025 and cited by round-ups such as Fortunly and BestPropFirms, almost always without the denominator. Treat it as an order of magnitude for a single purchase, not as your own odds across several attempts, and remember no major futures firm publishes an independently audited rate.
Are one-phase challenges easier to pass?
The published figures say yes for a single purchase: Swiset reports 20.3% of accounts funded on one-step challenges against 11.8% on two-step ones, without stating the period. But one phase usually comes with a higher target or a tighter loss floor, so the comparison is not like for like.
Is the Validator's simulated pass rate a real pass rate?
No, and that matters: the Validator is a Monte Carlo simulator that runs your strategy against the real rules in the verified presets and measures how often, across thousands of paths, it would reach the target without touching the loss floor. It is a simulation with published method and parameters, never a measurement of how many traders pass at that firm.
Before you buy a challenge, test it.
The Validator runs your strategy on the real rules of every prop and tells you where you would pass. The props, prices and coupons are all on one page.
Educational content, not financial advice. Prop firm challenges are simulated accounts; most traders do not pass them and trading involves risk. Links to props are affiliate links.