How to Actually Pass a Prop Firm Evaluation

Across thousands of simulated evaluation attempts, the traders who pass and KEEP their funded accounts share specific, measurable characteristics. This is not motivational advice -- it is the math. The highest-impact factor is contract choice. Traders who use MES (micro E-mini S&P, $5/point) instead of ES (E-mini S&P, $50/point) have dramatically higher pass rates AND dramatically higher survival rates once funded. The reason is mechanical: smaller dollar risk per trade means more room for error within the drawdown limit. On a $50,000 account with a $2,500 trailing drawdown, a 5-point stop on MES costs $25 (1% of drawdown). The same stop on ES costs $250 (10% of drawdown). You can be wrong 50 times on MES before hitting the drawdown limit. You can be wrong 10 times on ES. The strategy does not need to change -- just the contract size.

Our persona simulations model a disciplined trader archetype we call Dana. Dana's characteristics: - Trades MES exclusively (never switches to ES) - Fixed position size regardless of prior results (no revenge sizing) - Trades 3-4 days per week, sitting out when conditions do not match her strategy - Uses adaptive stops based on volatility conditions (wider on high-rating days, tighter on quiet days) - Takes 1-2 trades per session maximum - Accepts small losses without emotional response Dana's simulated results on a $50,000 Apex account: median time to hit $3,000 profit target is approximately 25-30 trading days. Probability of passing before drawdown: roughly 60-65%. Probability of keeping the funded account for 3+ months: approximately 45%. These are not exceptional numbers. Dana is not a great trader. She has a modest edge (55% win rate, 1.3:1 reward-to-risk). What makes her successful is that she never accelerates her losses through revenge sizing or oversizing.

Firm selection is itself a strategic decision. Different firms mechanically favor different trading styles: If you trade intraday and need breathing room: Choose EOD trailing drawdown firms (Topstep, Earn2Trade, MFF Core, Tradeify). Your intraday swings do not count against the drawdown until session close. If you are disciplined but need the cheapest entry: Leeloo Entry ($26-38/month) and Topstep ($49/month) have the lowest evaluation costs. Combined with promo discounts, evaluations can cost under $20/month. If you want to pass fast: MFF Rapid requires only 2 trading sessions. Tradeify and Trading Pit require 3 days. But fast pass does not mean easy -- you still need to hit the profit target within the drawdown limit. If you want the best funded terms: Apex pays 100% of the first $25,000 in withdrawals. MFF, Bulenox, and TradeDay pay 100% of the first $10,000. After that, most firms settle at 90/10. If you want to hold overnight: Elite Trader Funding's Diamond Hands program is the only major evaluation that explicitly allows overnight position holding.

One of the strongest patterns in our data: traders who match their activity to volatility conditions outperform those who trade the same way every day. On a rating 2-3 day (quiet), expected ranges are tight. Mean reversion strategies work well. Stops can be tighter because the market is unlikely to make large moves. These are ideal days for MES scalping with tight targets. On a rating 7-8 day (elevated), expected ranges are wide. Trend-following strategies work better. Stops must be wider to avoid being stopped out by normal noise. Position size should be reduced to compensate for wider stops. On a rating 9-10 day (extreme), many successful prop traders sit out entirely. The potential reward is large but the risk of a drawdown-busting move is also elevated. For a trader protecting a funded account, the risk-reward of trading extreme days is often unfavorable. The volatility rating does not tell you what to trade or when. It tells you what KIND of day it is, which determines whether your strategy is appropriate for the conditions.

Most traders spend 90% of their development time on entry signals and 10% on position sizing. The ratio should be inverted. A simple framework: risk no more than 2-3% of your remaining drawdown buffer on any single trade. On a $50,000 Apex account with $2,500 trailing drawdown, that means risking $50-75 per trade maximum. On MES at $5/point, that is a 10-15 point stop -- reasonable for most intraday strategies. As your account grows and the drawdown floor trails up (locking in profits), your buffer increases. At +$1,500 profit, your buffer is $2,500 (drawdown has trailed up but you still have $2,500 from current equity to the floor). Your per-trade risk can stay at 2-3% of this buffer. This adaptive approach means you risk less when the account is vulnerable (early, near drawdown limit) and can risk more as you build cushion. It is the opposite of the revenge-sizing approach, and the results are dramatically different.

Account survival data shows a clear pattern: if a trader survives the first 10 trading days without using more than 40% of their drawdown, their probability of passing the evaluation roughly doubles. The first 10 days are dangerous because: 1. The trader is eager and often overtrades 2. No profit buffer exists yet -- every loss comes directly from the drawdown limit 3. The temptation to "make up for lost time" after a slow start leads to size escalation The counterintuitive strategy: trade conservatively for the first two weeks. Take small positions. Accept small wins. Build a buffer. Once you have used less than 30% of your drawdown and built some profit cushion, you can slightly increase size for the remaining period. This approach feels slow. It is slow. But the alternative -- aggressive early trading that blows the account in week one -- is slower, because you have to pay for another evaluation and start over.

Passing the evaluation is the beginning, not the end. The majority of funded account failures happen in the first 30 days of funded trading. The psychological shift from "I need to hit a target" to "I need to not lose money" changes behavior in subtle ways. Common post-pass mistakes: - Switching from MES to ES to "make more money now that it counts" - Trading every day because "I am paying platform fees" - Ignoring the consistency rule that did not exist in evaluation - Taking oversized positions to reach the payout minimum faster The approach that works: trade your funded account exactly the same way you traded the evaluation. Same contract, same size, same frequency, same stops. The strategy that passed the evaluation is the strategy that will keep you funded. Changing anything introduces new variables at the worst possible time. The goal is not maximum profit. The goal is keeping the account alive long enough for your edge to compound. $200 per week on MES is $10,000 per year. That is a real return on a $167/month evaluation investment. It does not sound exciting, but it is sustainable -- and sustainability is what separates prop trading as a business from prop trading as gambling.