One-step vs two-step prop firm challenges compared

Most prop firms sell their evaluations in two main formats. A two-step challenge asks you to pass two separate phases before you are funded. A one-step challenge has a single phase. The difference sounds like a matter of time, but the two formats usually differ in their loss limits and drawdown rules as well, and those differences matter more than the number of phases.

This guide compares them using typical ranges from the forex, futures and crypto programs we track, plus one same-firm example.

How a two-step challenge works

In a two-step challenge you trade the same account size through two phases.

• Phase 1 has the larger target, typically 8% or 10% of the starting balance.
• Phase 2, often called verification, has a smaller target, typically 4% or 5%. The account resets to its starting balance before it begins.
• The daily and maximum loss limits are usually the same in both phases, commonly 4% to 5% daily and 8% to 10% maximum.
• The maximum loss is usually static: a fixed floor below the starting balance that does not move as you make money. Nearly all of the forex two-step programs in our data use a static maximum loss.
• Many programs set a minimum number of trading days in each phase.

The second phase exists to check that the first result was not a fluke. The lower target reflects that the firm wants to see the trader repeat their discipline, not repeat a large gain.

How a one-step challenge works

A one-step challenge has one target, after which you are funded.

• The target is often similar to a two-step’s first phase, commonly 8% to 12% in forex and crypto. Futures evaluations are almost all single-phase and usually set a target of around 6%.
• Loss limits tend to be tighter. In forex, a 3% daily limit and a 6% maximum loss are common. Futures programs often set a maximum loss of around 3%, and many have no daily limit at all.
• In forex and futures the maximum loss is more often trailing: it follows your balance, equity or end-of-day balance upward, which reduces your room as you profit. Forex one-step programs in our data are split between static and trailing models, with trailing more common. Futures evaluations almost all trail, usually on an end-of-day basis. Crypto one-step programs mostly keep a static limit but set it lower, typically 3% to 6%.
• Some one-step programs add a consistency rule that limits how much of the profit can come from a single day.

A same-firm example

Comparing formats inside one firm removes some of the noise. FTMO sells both, and its rules show the typical pattern. Figures are from our firm data for the $100,000 USD account; FTMO states its fees in euros.

	FTMO 2-Step	FTMO 1-Step
List price	€540	€499
Profit target	10%, then 5%	10%
Daily loss limit	5%	3%
Maximum loss	10%, static	10%, trailing the end-of-day balance
Minimum trading days	4 per phase	None listed
Starting profit split	80%	90%
Fee refunded with first reward	Yes	No

The 1-Step costs a little less, pays a higher starting split and lists no minimum days. In exchange, the daily limit is two percentage points tighter, the maximum loss trails, the fee is not refunded and a rule caps the share of profit that can come from any single day. Current terms are on the FTMO profile.

Side-by-side comparison

The table summarises typical ranges across the market. Individual programs vary, sometimes widely.

	Two-step	One-step
Phases before funding	2	1
Typical target	8% to 10%, then 4% to 5%	8% to 12% (around 6% in futures)
Typical daily loss limit	4% to 5%	About 3%, or none in many futures programs
Typical maximum loss	8% to 10%	About 3% to 6% in most programs
Drawdown model	Usually static	Often trailing
Minimum trading days	Common, set per phase	Less common; consistency rules sometimes act as one
Fee at the same size	No consistent pattern	No consistent pattern
Quickest possible route to funding	Slower	Faster

Cost: look at the cost of getting funded, not the fee

At the $100,000 size, firms that sell both formats do not price them consistently. In our data some charge less for the one-step and some charge more, and the gap is usually modest. The fee alone tells you little.

A more useful figure is the expected cost of reaching a funded account, which depends on how likely you are to pass. As an illustration only: if a fee is $500 and your realistic chance of passing is one in five, you should expect to spend about $2,500 in fees on average before you pass, and it could be much more. A cheaper format with tighter limits that lowers your chance of passing can cost more overall.

Refund policies matter too, but only conditionally. A fee refunded with the first payout is worth something only if you reach a payout. Most traders do not pass evaluations, and fees for failed attempts are usually not refunded.

Time to a funded account

A two-step challenge takes longer almost by definition: two targets, two sets of minimum days and a review between phases. If each phase requires four trading days, the shortest possible route is eight trading days plus review time, and most traders take far longer.

A one-step challenge can be completed in fewer sessions, and some programs have no minimum days at all. Consistency rules often set a practical minimum, though. If no single day may exceed 50% of total profit, at least two days are needed. At 40%, at least three.

Speed only matters if your strategy suits the rules. Paying for a quicker format and failing it is slower than passing a longer one.

The room-to-target ratio

One simple way to compare programs is to divide the profit target by the maximum loss. It shows how much you must make relative to how much you are allowed to lose.

Examples, using round numbers on a $100,000 account:

• Two-step, phase 1: $10,000 target against a $10,000 static maximum loss. A ratio of 1:1.
• Forex one-step: $10,000 target against a $6,000 trailing maximum loss. About 1.7:1, and the trailing floor can shrink your room further as you profit.
• Futures one-step: $6,000 target against a $3,000 end-of-day trailing loss. A ratio of 2:1.

The higher the ratio, the more your strategy has to make before an ordinary run of losses ends the account. That is often the real price of a single phase. The second phase of a two-step, with a $5,000 target against $10,000 of room in this example, is the most forgiving stage of the whole process. The drawdown guide shows how trailing floors change these numbers in practice.

One trader, two formats: a worked example

The numbers below are illustrative and do not describe any specific firm. Take the same sequence of results on two $100,000 accounts:

• Two-step: 10% target, 5% daily loss limit, 10% static maximum loss (floor fixed at $90,000).
• One-step: 10% target, 3% daily loss limit, 6% maximum loss that trails the highest closed balance.

Over the first week the trader closes $5,000 of profit, taking the balance to $105,000. On the two-step account the floor stays at $90,000, so there is $15,000 of room. On the one-step account the floor has trailed up to $99,000, so there is $6,000 of room.

Then comes a bad day: a $3,500 loss. On the two-step account that is inside the $5,000 daily limit, and the balance is $101,500. On the one-step account it breaks the $3,000 daily limit, and the account is closed.

Suppose instead the losses are spread out, $1,500 a day over four days. Neither daily limit is touched. The two-step account ends at $99,000 with $9,000 of room left. The one-step account also ends at $99,000, which is exactly its trailing floor, so it is breached, even though the trader is only $1,000 below the starting balance.

The same trading left the account open in one format and closed in the other. That is why the loss model deserves more attention than the number of phases.

What stays the same

Some things do not change with the format. In both, the account is usually simulated, conduct rules such as news windows and banned strategies apply, and a single breach ends the attempt. In both, most traders do not pass, and the fee for a failed attempt is usually gone.

Which format suits which style

These are tendencies, not rules. Your own record under similar limits is the most reliable guide you have.

A two-step challenge tends to suit:

• Swing and position traders who use wider stops and hold for days.
• Traders whose open profit swings a lot within a trade, since a static floor does not punish open profit that is given back.
• Traders who would rather take more time in exchange for more room.
• Traders who value a fee refund on the first payout, where the firm offers one.

A one-step challenge tends to suit:

• Intraday traders with tight stops and frequent, small results.
• Traders with an even pattern of daily profit, who are less affected by trailing drawdowns and consistency rules.
• Traders who want to reach the funded stage in fewer sessions and accept tighter limits to do so.

Futures traders have less choice. Almost all futures evaluations are single-phase, so the real comparison there is between drawdown models and daily limit types rather than between formats.

Questions to ask before choosing

• What is the maximum loss in dollars, and does it trail? If so, does it stop trailing at some point?
• How is the daily loss measured, and when does the trading day reset?
• What minimum days and consistency rules apply, in each phase and on the funded account?
• Is the fee refunded, and under what conditions?
• Are the funded-account rules the same as the evaluation’s, or stricter?

You can filter firms by format on the one-step and two-step lists, compare individual programs on the challenges page, and read about the third route, skipping the evaluation altogether, in instant funding vs evaluation.