Prop firm pass rates: the numbers the firms publish about themselves
Some futures prop firms disclose how many participants pass, get paid and reach live capital. Others publish only the boilerplate. Both facts are on their own websites, and the difference is the finding.
Ask a futures prop firm how many people pass and you usually get marketing. What almost nobody notices is that some of them publish the answer themselves, in the disclosure block at the bottom of their own website, because US rules on hypothetical performance push them towards it.
We read those blocks on 10 August 2026. The numbers below are the firms’ own, quoted from their own pages.
What does the strongest disclosure actually say?
MyFundedFutures publishes a full chain of outcomes covering 1 January 2024 to 1 July 2025, programme-wide across all account tiers:
| Stage | Their figure |
|---|---|
| Evaluation accounts that met all objectives and advanced past evaluation | 20.35% |
| Participants who reached a simulated Funded Stage at some point | 43.41% |
| Of those funded, earned at least one payout | 28.56% |
| Participants promoted to a Live Funded Account | 1.01% |
Read the last two rows together, because that is where the arithmetic lives. If 43.41% of participants ever reach the funded stage, and 28.56% of those receive any payout, then roughly twelve in a hundred participants are ever paid anything.
And the figure that gets no attention at all: 1.01% reached live capital. One in a hundred.
The firm is careful about what the 43.41% means, and so should you be. It counts participants cumulatively, “through participating in one or more evaluation programs”, and explicitly “includes individuals who purchased multiple evaluation programs”. That is a rate per person over time, not per attempt. Per attempt it would be lower.
Does anyone else publish numbers?
Partially, and the differences are informative.
Take Profit Trader publishes two figures on its own site: 20.37% of currently registered users have passed a trading test, and 36.22% of all trading tests were passed. The second number is higher than the first because one person can take several tests. The firm presents them plainly, alongside a statement that the test is meant to be hard.
Elite Trader Funding publishes the CFTC Rule 4.41 disclosure in full and no outcome statistics at all. The block explains that simulated results have limitations, that trades were not executed, and that no representation is made about likely profits. Every word of it is standard, and there is not a single number about their own participants.
Apex Trader Funding, on the homepage as read on 10 August 2026, describes the accounts as simulated but publishes no participant statistics there either.
Why does any of this get published?
Because these programmes run on simulated accounts, and US rules on presenting hypothetical performance require a warning. CFTC Rule 4.41 is the one the firms cite: simulated results do not represent actual trading, the trades were not executed, and results may be affected by factors like lack of liquidity that a live market would have imposed.
The rule requires the caveat. It does not require anyone to publish pass rates. That some firms go further, with dated, programme-wide figures, is a choice, and so is publishing nothing.
What Rule 4.41 requires, and what it leaves optional
The distinction explains the whole pattern above.
CFTC Rule 4.41 governs how hypothetical or simulated performance may be presented. It requires the warning: that simulated results do not represent actual trading, that the trades were not executed, that results may have over- or under-compensated for factors such as lack of liquidity, and that simulated programmes are designed with the benefit of hindsight.
Every firm in this sector carries some version of that text, because every one of them is selling access to a simulated environment and describing outcomes within it.
What the rule does not require is any statement about how the firm’s own participants have actually done. Publishing that a fifth of evaluations are passed, or that one in a hundred reaches live capital, is voluntary.
So the disclosure block tells you two separate things. The boilerplate tells you the product is simulated, which is true everywhere. Whether numbers sit beside it tells you what the firm chose to make checkable.
What the numbers do not mean
They are not a ranking of difficulty. A firm with a higher published pass rate may have easier objectives, a more forgiving drawdown calculation, or a different mix of account sizes. The figures are not measured the same way and were never designed to be compared.
They are not a prediction for you. Every disclosure says this, and every disclosure is right to. What they describe is the shape of the distribution, not your position in it.
A missing number is not proof of a bad outcome. A firm publishing nothing may simply have a smaller compliance team. Absence is not evidence of a worse rate; it is evidence that you cannot check.
What is worth taking from it
The funded stage is not the finish line. Reaching it and being paid are different events, and the gap between them at the one firm that publishes both is large: 28.56% of funded participants earned at least one payout. Any plan that treats passing as the goal has skipped the part where money changes hands.
Live capital is rare and usually unadvertised. One in a hundred, at the firm that discloses it. Marketing across this industry uses “funded” to mean the simulated stage, which is accurate under their terms and not what most readers hear.
The disclosure block is worth reading before the pricing page. It is where the firm describes its own product in language written by a lawyer rather than a marketer, and it is the only part of the site with an incentive to be accurate.
Why we check this
Numbers a firm publishes about itself are the most useful figures available, because they are checkable, dated and attributable. They are also easy to miss: this material sits below the fold, in small type, on pages nobody links to.
We record these with the date read, because they change without announcement. This page reflects the disclosures as they stood on 10 August 2026, and where a firm publishes nothing we say so rather than filling the gap with an estimate.
We do not run evaluations ourselves and hold no funded accounts, so nothing here reports pass rates measured by us. See the methodology, our page on prop firm challenges for how the model is built, and the advertising disclosure for how the site is paid.
Sources
- MyFundedFutures — 2024-2025 Evaluation Program Performance Summary
- Take Profit Trader — published pass rate
- Elite Trader Funding — CFTC Rule 4.41 disclosure
- CFTC — Rule 4.41, hypothetical performance results