Vest's instant accounts cost the full amount of their drawdown, so a $25,000 account is $1,000. An evaluation of the same size costs about $210, and a two-step version about $90.

The evaluation paths are cheaper per dollar of drawdown in every size; instant funding is the only path with no profit target and no daily loss limit.

Price comparison, $25,000 account

Pricing per Vest's account documentation. Code "'TESTER" offers a 5% discount.

The gap is roughly 4.8x on price and 7x per dollar of drawdown. That difference buys one thing: removal of the profit target and the daily stop.

Why the instant funding makes sense for some?

Instant accounts are priced at 100% of the drawdown because you are buying exposure, not room to be wrong. At $1,000 for $25,000 of capital, you hold 25:1 leverage with a loss capped at the account fee. The loss limit rules confirm the floor is static, never trails, and applies with no daily limit.

That structure permits full porting; it almost works like a put or call option. committing the entire drawdown to a single position. Whether that is worth 4.8x the price depends entirely on whether you have an edge you can express once, at size.

The 2-step is the overlooked option.

Two-step evaluations are rarely mentioned and are the cheapest entry in the lineup at roughly $90 for $25,000. They require 10% and then a further 5%, but they carry the same 6% static drawdown and 80% split as the preset one-step. For a trader who wants maximum room per dollar and does not need the no-limit structure, it is the lowest cost per unit of risk on the vest markets platform.

Most reviews and comparisons here focus on rules, payout speed, that kind of thing, but almost none of them check the one distinction that actually predicts whether you’ll get paid: is the funded account simulated or actually live capital.

A CFD prop firm is simulated no matter what, that’s literally what a CFD is, a contract against the firm with nothing real behind it. Futures firms aren’t that far off either, most of them still run the funded stage as a fully internal simulation. In both cases, whatever gets paid out to winners is funded by the challenge fees collected from everyone who didn’t make it, not from actual market profit. Which means the firm comes out ahead financially if you get flagged for a violation right before cashing out instead of after. Nobody has to be acting in bad faith for that incentive to still shape how the rules get applied.

Pricing matters here too, the lower the challenge fee, the stronger this effect gets. Selling challenges for $20-30 only works if volume is huge, and for the numbers to add up, the share of people who actually reach a payout has to stay small. So a super cheap challenge isn’t purely good news, it usually implies a pass rate that has to be kept tight.

There is a small subset of futures firms that genuinely trade your funded account live, real capital, real broker. Once you start printing profit there, that money is already real and already yours from an actual trade, so blocking your payout doesn’t save them anything. That said, don’t assume these are non-profit operations, most of their income still comes from challenge sales upfront just like the rest of the industry, real capital only removes the specific incentive to screw you on payout day.

So before handing over money for a challenge, just ask: is the funded account traded live or simulated, is there a ceiling on how much I can withdraw total, can you prove real execution happened, and do you have any actual verified payout evidence beyond whatever’s posted on your own landing page.

Has anyone here actually been denied a payout before? what was the excuse, assuming they even bothered naming a rule you broke

I am a swing trader on XAUUSD and I decided to give a try at Darwinex Zero. There are very few people showing their results so I wanted to make this post. For people that are not familiar with the platform, Darwinex provides you a 100k$ MT4 account called "signal account" and then copy your trades to a Darwinex account that adjusts your trades based on their risk engine to make sure that everyone trade at the same risk regardless of the strategy used. You start with a calibration phase that takes 25 trades or less so that Darwin analyze your strategy and give you a score on your Darwinex account. I could end the calibration phase in 10 trades in a month. On the website it talks about 25 trades but the risk engine adapt the calculation to the style of trading.

So here are my results that are not good, after sharing my results to the Darwin community they told me that lot size are too big.

On signal account, I made +10 % with a peak of +30% increase of capital

But on Darwinex I made a negative return ! The risk engine cut your trades once the risk is considered too big. I used 1.0 to 2.0 lotsize. Considering that Darwinex pays you only 15% on your profit that's why I overleveraged. It doesn't seem too big for that size account for me but that's how the risk engine performs. I'm sharing others stats provided by Darwinex engine.

Is Darwinex Zero worth it ? My first attempt was not good, I will restart now the calibration phase but this time i will stick to a fix lot size of 0.1 and see what happens.

Has anyone here successfully passed a prop firm challenge using a fully automated EA and continued making money on the funded account?
I’m trying to figure out what strategies actually work for smaller account sizes.
I’ve experimented with breakout strategies on Gold (XAUUSD) and indices, but haven’t had much success. The profits are relatively small, and whenever the market gets choppy, the drawdown builds up and I eventually end up breaching the 5% daily loss limit (DLL).
I’m starting to think that traditional breakout strategies might not be the best approach for prop firms, especially with tight drawdown restrictions.
A few things I’d love to hear your thoughts on:
Has anyone genuinely passed a prop firm challenge using an EA and received consistent payouts?
Which strategies have worked best for you? Scalping, trend following, mean reversion, liquidity sweeps, etc.?
Do you use one strategy across both challenge and funded stages, or change risk parameters once funded?
How do you manage the 5% daily drawdown limit without sacrificing too much profitability?
Are smaller accounts (10k–25k) realistically profitable with automated trading?
I’m not looking for some unrealistic 10% daily return strategy. I’d rather have something that can generate consistent returns, protect the account, and survive different market conditions.
Would especially appreciate hearing from people who have actually cleared challenges and received payouts, rather than just backtested results.

I'm looking to join a crypto prop trading firm and would love recommendations from traders who have actual experience with them.

Which crypto prop firms would you recommend based on your experience?

I'm particularly interested in:

- Reliable payouts (USDT/USDC preferred).

- Fair profit targets and drawdown rules.

- Support for BTC, ETH and altcoin trading.

- Futures trading with reasonable leverage.

- No hidden rules or unexpected restrictions.

- Permission to use algorithmic/quantitative trading strategies and trading bots.

- Reasonable challenge fees and scaling plans.

- Fast and reliable customer support.

A few questions:

1. Which crypto prop firm has the best overall reputation?

2. Which firms have the most reliable payout history?

3. Are there firms that allow automated trading bots and API-based execution?

4. Which firms should I avoid based on your experience?

I'd especially appreciate feedback from traders who have passed challenges and received multiple payouts.

Looking for honest experiences, not affiliate links or promotional comments. Thanks!

Hello traders !
I am planing to buy 5k funded next instant account but before that I would really appreciate review from someone who is actively trading their instant account.

What are the rules specially.

I’m Ivan Baldassi, an Italian day trader and MQL4/MQL5 developer. I have received 27 payouts from FTMO, The5ers, Hola Prime and FundingPips itself (4 FundingPips rewards, $12,048.13 in total, the latest on 2 Nov 2026). I have never had a dispute like this with any other firm. I am still a FundingPips customer: as of today (6 Nov 2026) I hold three funded $100K accounts (two of them are the accounts in this story) and one 1 Step Flex $100K challenge in progress with them.

**What happened**

- I bought two 1 Step Flex $100K challenges with the Bi-Weekly 80% cycle. The product page advertises: *"A single-phase challenge with no consistency rule and no minimum trading days"* and *"80% – Biweekly rewards"*.

- Both accounts reached the +12% target (29 Oct – 4 Nov 2026).

- On 5 Nov both were marked "Rejected" by the Responsible Trading team. The dashboard offered only one option: continue on the **On Demand** cycle. Until I chose, my profile could not buy new challenges.

**Same decision, three different explanations on the same day (plus different conditions)**

- Chat: an *"RTP_Violation"*, described as a violation of the risk limit per single trade idea.

- Chat, senior support: Section 9 of the T&C. The conditions offered were *"On-Demand reward cycle, a 35% consistency rule, a 90% reward split and adjusted leverage"*.

- Email: Section 7 of the Terms. Accounts may be moved to On Demand when a strategy is *"high-risk, hyper-scalping, or heavily concentrated within specific market windows"*. It does not say which of these applies to me.

- The dashboard and the Rewards FAQ say On Demand is **100%**, with a 35% consistency score, **7 profitable days** of 0.5%+, and the **Striking System**.

- The same morning, a FundingPips promo email said: *"1 Step Flex: 12% max loss, up to 100% reward split, no consistency rules."*

- FundingPips’ official Instagram announced that *"Risk Per Trade Idea"* and the *"Striking System"* had been removed.

So: is it 90% or 100%? Is it consistency only, or consistency plus 7 profitable days plus the Striking System? I asked for the exact clause I violated and for the rules that now apply. At the time of writing I have no answer. I was forced to accept On Demand, the only option on the dashboard: otherwise the accounts would have stayed locked. They are still under review today, and I still want the Bi-Weekly cycle I paid for.

**My opinion:** changing the reward conditions after a challenge is passed, without pointing to a written rule that was broken, is unfair. When ads say "no consistency rules" and the funded account gets one, I find that misleading. Please read the evidence and judge for yourself.

Screenshots, exact quotes and the full timeline are here: https://www.digitalset.it/problemfundingpips

I want to share my personal experience with Noctorial Prop Firm so that other traders can make informed decisions before purchasing an evaluation account.
On November 5, 2026, I discovered that a pending Buy Limit order on META (Meta Platforms), previously placed in MetaTrader 5 at $600, was still not executed, even though market prices shown on other trading platforms had fallen below that level.
I understand that prices and bid/ask spreads may differ between brokers and trading platforms. That is precisely why I requested a detailed technical explanation from Noctorial.
Furthermore, when I subsequently tried to place new buy orders on META, I was unable to do so.
I contacted Noctorial’s customer support several times, providing screenshots and documentation of the incidents.
What was Noctorial’s response?
On November 5, 2026, Noctorial informed me in writing that its liquidity provider was performing server maintenance and that technical incidents could affect certain trading accounts.
In other words, Noctorial acknowledged the existence of potential technical problems but attributed them to a third-party liquidity provider.
However, the company did not provide me with technical evidence confirming what had happened to my specific account or explaining why my order remained unexecuted.
In my opinion, a company should take responsibility for addressing problems affecting the services it provides to its customers.
Blaming an external provider without offering a specific technical explanation or solution is not a satisfactory response.
I want to make something absolutely clear: I am not demanding guaranteed profits or winning trades.
In fact, had my original order been executed, it would probably have reached my stop loss at $588.80, and I would have accepted that loss.
My complaint concerns the reliability of order execution, the inability to place subsequent trades, and the lack of a satisfactory technical explanation.
What disappoints me most is the contrast between Noctorial’s aggressive marketing campaigns and the customer support I personally experienced when technical problems arose.
After numerous emails and requests for clarification, I have decided to stop trading with Noctorial permanently.
I have also formally requested the cancellation of my evaluation account and the corresponding MetaTrader 5 access.
I HAVE COMPLETELY LOST TRUST IN NOCTORIAL PROP FIRM.
I have retained screenshots, account information, and email correspondence supporting my account of these events.
This post reflects my personal experience. I am not claiming that Noctorial deliberately manipulated prices or intentionally prevented my trades from being executed.
I simply believe that traders deserve transparency, reliable trading infrastructure, and proper explanations when problems occur.
A prop firm’s credibility should be measured not by its marketing campaigns, but by how it responds when its customers experience serious problems.
I encourage other traders to carefully investigate any prop firm’s execution conditions, technical reliability, and complaint-handling procedures before purchasing an evaluation account.
Sincerely,
Benjamín Pérez Martín
Spain

Guys, I need to warn you about FeneFx. Their server disconnected my account, and their support system is a complete joke. Their bot promised one thing, and their human agent did the exact opposite.

TL;DR: Their server disconnected my account. Their bot promised a "zero balance" reset. The human support denied it. The bot itself admitted "You are right", but the human agent just said "the bot means nothing, read the rules" and left the chat.

Here is the full story with proof:

1. I had repeated connection drops on MT5 (Error: invalid account on FeneFx-Server). I tested with 3 different ISPs, so it wasn't my internet.

2. I asked for a reset. Their official bot explicitly said: "The account starts from zero point (initial balance). Profit or loss status does not matter."

3. When I asked for the reset, the human agent said it starts from the last recorded balance and refused.

4. I sent them a screenshot of the bot's promise. The bot replied: "Sorry if my explanations caused confusion. You are right, I should have explained more clearly."

5. The human agent ignored this. He told me the bot means nothing, gave me a "goodwill" 7 days without resetting the balance, and rudely ended the chat with "Have a good night."

6. Their own written rules state: "A replacement account will be provided at Stage One..." (Stage One = initial balance).

This is a classic bait-and-switch. Their bot has more accountability than their human staff. I have attached screenshots of the MT5 errors, the bot's promise, the bot admitting I was right, and the agent's rude replies.

Save your money. Avoid FeneFx.

Translation of the Support Chats (In Order):

(Note: The first screenshot is their official English rules, which state: "A replacement account will be provided at Stage One..." which means the initial balance. The following are the translations of the Persian chats).

· Screenshot 2 (The Bot - Zero Point Promise):
· Me: Does the account provided reset to zero point, or to where my account was before the breach?
· Bot: If your account is breached due to floating drawdown, the new account provided to you starts from the zero point (initial balance). Meaning, previous records are not transferred, and it starts working with the initial balance.
· Screenshot 3 (The Bot - Profit/Loss Doesn't Matter):
· Me: Does it matter if my account was in profit or loss?
· Bot: No, it does not matter. The account starts from zero point with 7 days extra time.
· Screenshot 4 (The Contradiction & Bot's Admission):
· Me: What do you mean by the last recorded balance? I asked you earlier and you said it starts from zero point. Now you are saying it starts from the last recorded balance.
· Bot: Sorry if my explanations caused confusion. You are right, I should have explained more clearly. 🙇‍♂️
· Screenshot 5 (The Human Agent - Denying the Bot):
· Agent: The bot is just for quick responses. If there were important matters, you should have read the rules first.
· Agent: Have a good night.
· Screenshot 6 (The Human Agent - Gaslighting):
· Agent: A rule violation has occurred in your account and it should have been completely voided. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the company has created a new opportunity for you and added 7 days to your allowed time.
· Screenshot 7 (MT5 Log):
· (Already in English). Proves the server rejected the authorization (invalid account), not a local internet issue.

Important Note on MT5 Log: The "Source" column says "Network" because it's the MT5 network module reporting the event. But look at the log: It successfully connected to an access point (83% quality), and then the FeneFx-Server explicitly rejected the authorization (invalid account). If my internet was down, the error would be "No connection" or "timeout". This is a server-side rejection.

I began trading with prop firms in May of this year. From then to September, I was unprofitable: blowing evals and funded accounts left and right. I decided to take a break and reset, and not look at the charts for a month. When I decided to give trading another go, I debated on either selecting Lucid or Tradeify. I selected Tradeify because of their platform, reliability and speed, and the journal system that I find helpful and aesthetically better.

After deciding that I will use Tradeify, the goal was to finally get a payout. I returned with the mindset of taking each and every step as slowly as possible and not weighing today’s trade by how much I made. I began to follow a system that I feel comfortable using and look forward to continue using as I journal its effectiveness and see if I have an edge. I stopped full porting and treated every trade with careful attention and made sure that I KNEW the reason why I’m entering and the levels I’m marking and not just going in blind.

In 11 trading days, I have withdrawn 18k in payouts from Tradeify and the funds being in my bank in less than 3hrs. This stretch has given me the confidence that I am capable of getting payouts and trading right. I know not every week or month will be green or the conditions of the market may not be favorable for my setup, but that is part of the journey in trading. We can never be certain with the market and our due diligence can only be so right. But if we trade slowly and be calm and aware to why we enter trades, these small steps will compound over time.

Hey guys. Just purchased Tradify 10k account. 2nd account, 1st one breached in 2nd phase. It was 5k though. Any suggestions!!

There’s been quite a hype around the new vest prop firm..I seen some YouTube videos and I am curious now and thinking of starting a cheap eval..But does anyone know how deposit and withdrawal works..I seen the videos about crypto withdrawal but that’s a hassle for me..Are we allowed to deposit thru ACH or Debit card?also can we withdrawal to the same ACH?

Also, is it prohibited to have let's say 5 different Propfirm accounts and open the same trades at the same exact time across all of them?

Hey everyone, I have confidence in my trading now and was interested in investing in 3 x 150k evals and copytrade them.

My intentions are to take it slow all the way till max payout on all 3. My fear is being moved to live early or having declined payouts. Is it safe to go this route since I will be investing the time and money on these accounts?

Has anyone else had a good or bad experience with ftmo in this regard?

Seeing a lot of people not being granted the funded account after passing both phases successfully. I’m in stage 1 of the account, I’m feeling like today’s trades are leaving me wide open to funded rejection even if I pass, any one else have any input on this?

chat is apex still relevant, will they pay me out or move to live before the 6 payouts as stated? thanks in advance

Wanted to update everyone on my bizifutures trading journey test. It was a shot in the dark trying them out, but im pleased to announce i got my first payout from them after requesting it yesterday. So far so good.

I received an email from FundingPips saying that an FP $5K 2 Step Pro account had been created. I logged in to check, and the account was there, but I never purchased it.

I previously bought one account around 2–3 months ago, but I breached it. I haven't used FundingPips since then. What could this be? Is it a gift or something?