If you’re stuck wondering why so many traders trip over prop firm evaluations, or you keep hearing stories about “instant funding” and think it sounds too good to be true, this breakdown is for you. Here’s the real scoop on what goes down when you try to get funded by the best proprietary trading firms, based on my own attempts, industry chatter, and some hard data from places like the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). I’ll go through the process, show you where people mess up, and even toss in a couple of screenshots from actual platforms. Plus, I’ll compare how firms in different countries handle “verified trade” standards, because that mess is a maze on its own.
Let’s skip the theory and get real. Say you’re signing up for a funded account challenge at one of those big names—FTMO, Topstep, or The5ers. The standard process is a multi-stage grind. Here’s how it usually plays out, and where the potholes are:
Before you even touch a chart, the firm wants to know who you are. You’ll upload ID, maybe proof of address, and sometimes answer questions about your trading experience. The compliance teams are usually strict because they have to follow rules set by bodies like the FCA (see FCA AML guidelines). I once uploaded a blurry passport photo, and got stuck for three days while support verified it—so don’t rush this step!
This is where most traders get cocky and blow up. You’re given a demo account with strict rules: max drawdown, profit target, and minimum trading days. For FTMO, for example, the profit target might be 10%, but you can’t lose more than 5% in total or 2% per day (FTMO rules). It seems easy, but trust me, when you’re trying to hit the target while dodging those loss limits, psychology kicks in hard.
Even if you hit the profit target, the real test is whether you followed their risk rules. Some firms use automated systems to check this (see: Topstep rules). If you overleverage or trade outside allowed hours, your run gets invalidated. I once forgot about the “no trading on major news” rule and got flagged—support sent me a polite but firm email explaining the breach.
If you clear the first round, some firms require a second, usually shorter phase to prove consistency. This isn’t just about hitting numbers—it’s about showing you didn’t get lucky. More experienced traders get tripped up here because they relax, thinking the hard part is done.
Once you’re funded, the real challenge begins: you’re now trading real money, but the risk controls are even tighter. Firms like The5ers will monitor every trade, and if you breach risk rules, your account is pulled—no second chances. According to their compliance FAQ (see The5ers FAQ), this is partly because they’re regulated under Israeli financial law, which is strict about client fund protection.
In my own attempts, and from talking with other traders on Reddit (r/propfirm), the biggest challenges aren’t technical, but psychological and regulatory. Here’s a quick rundown:
Data from CFTC enforcement actions shows that prop firms must comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and “verified trade” standards, which means no shortcuts for clients. That’s not just bureaucracy—it’s about keeping the firm’s banking relationships solid.
One thing that’s baffling if you trade globally: the standards for “verified” trading activity and trader due diligence vary by country. I dug into this when a friend from Singapore had his prop account frozen for missing local compliance paperwork.
Country | Verified Trade Standard Name | Legal Basis | Executing Agency |
---|---|---|---|
United States | CFTC Verified Trade Rule | Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) | CFTC |
United Kingdom | FCA Trade Reporting Standards | Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 | FCA |
Singapore | MAS Due Diligence Standards | Securities and Futures Act (SFA) | MAS |
Israel | ISA Client Verification | Investment Advice Law (1995) | ISA |
Here’s a real-world example: a trader I met at a London fintech meetup had been funded by a US-based firm, but wanted to move to a UK-regulated prop shop. The UK firm required a deeper background check, including a “source of funds” declaration, due to FCA rules (see FCA source of funds). The process took weeks, whereas his US onboarding had taken just days.
I spoke with Mark D., who runs risk at a mid-sized prop firm in Chicago. “The biggest challenge isn’t just finding traders who can make money,” he said, “it’s finding those who can do it consistently while respecting our compliance framework. Most fail because they treat the evaluation like a casino night, not a job interview.”
He also emphasized that ongoing monitoring is non-negotiable, especially as regulators tighten the screws. See the OECD guidance on trading compliance for more on this.
If you’re gearing up for a prop firm evaluation, here are my battle-tested tips:
I once thought I was ready, blitzed through the first phase, but ignored the “minimum trading days” rule and got disqualified. It was humbling—and kind of infuriating, because I’d actually hit the profit target. Turns out, following instructions matters as much as skill.
Passing a top prop firm evaluation is less about showing off big trades, and more about proving you can operate as a disciplined, risk-controlled asset. The process is designed to weed out gamblers and compliance headaches, not just losing traders.
Next step? Join a few forums like Trade2Win or Elite Trader to see real stories. And if you’re serious, download the rulebook of each firm before you even think about signing up. You’ll save yourself a ton of frustration—and maybe even some money.
If you want to dig deeper, check the compliance guidelines from the WTO financial services standards or the WCO Verified Trader Programme—both set benchmarks that influence how prop firms are audited and how they handle your data.
Bottom line: treat the evaluation like a job interview with compliance, not just a trading contest. If you respect the process, you stand a far better shot at getting funded—and staying funded.