There are more than 30 active prop firms worth considering in mid-2026, and the failure modes documented in the industry overview mean choosing badly is a real cost. This guide is the method we use to narrow that field down to a shortlist of two or three firms — practical enough to do in 30 minutes once a quarter, and structured so each step removes a specific risk.
The order matters. The first three filters are about avoiding the firms you would regret using; the last is about choosing between the survivors. Doing them in this order means you spend the marginal effort on the firms that are actually worth comparing.
Step 1 — Filter for operating record (5 minutes)
Open the comparison table and sort by founding year, oldest first.
Disqualify everything founded after 2022 unless you have a specific reason to revisit it. This is harsh, and you will exclude a few firms that turn out fine. You will also exclude every firm that has failed in the 2024–2026 wave, because by definition they did not have the operating record to survive it. Cross-reference the shutdown tracker — every firm there shared the trait of being relatively new when the platform shock hit.
Keep the firms with a continuous five-year track record through the February 2024 MetaQuotes shock. That cohort is small. It is the right starting universe.
Step 2 — Filter for platform access in your jurisdiction (5 minutes)
For each surviving firm, confirm two things on the firm’s own pricing page:
- Which platform will you actually be trading on, given the evaluation tier you would buy?
- Does the firm currently serve traders in your country at that tier?
This is where the 2026 platform shake-up matters. US traders should expect MT4 / MT5 to be unavailable, new US cTrader purchases closed since March 31, 2026, Match-Trader to be the supported CFD path, and futures-native platforms (Rithmic, NinjaTrader, TopstepX) to be normal for futures-only programs. Traders elsewhere should still confirm, because regional access changes have been frequent through 2026.
Disqualify any firm that cannot give you the platform you actually plan to use, or that has unclear or shifting language about whether traders in your country can sign up. The fix here is the firm’s responsibility, not yours.
Step 3 — Filter for drawdown model fit (5 minutes)
This is the step most traders skip and most regretted skipping. Open each surviving firm in the comparison table and check the drawdown model and the daily / max drawdown percentages.
There are three drawdown models — static, trailing, end-of-day trailing — and the practical risk they imply is different even at the same headline percentage. We cover this in detail in drawdown limits explained. The short version for shortlisting:
- If you trade with stop-losses set to the firm’s daily-loss threshold, prefer static drawdown — it is the most forgiving and the most predictable.
- If you are a futures trader, end-of-day trailing is the realistic middle ground; you can live with it, but check at what profit level the trail locks.
- If you see a low-percentage intraday trailing limit (4% or less) and you trade actively, that firm should drop off your shortlist unless you have a specific edge that fits the model.
Use the drawdown calculator to translate each percentage into the dollar amount you would actually be working with.
Step 4 — Choose between survivors (15 minutes)
After Steps 1–3, you are usually down to three to five firms. This is where price, profit split, and operational detail matter — and you can read them off the comparison table directly:
- Evaluation fee: compare like-for-like (same account size, same program type).
- Profit split: 80% is industry standard; higher is a feature, not a deal-breaker; lower is a deal-breaker.
- Payout cycle: weekly or biweekly is now standard among the survivors; monthly is acceptable but worse.
- Trustpilot score and review count: a high score with low count is uninformative; treat 500+ reviews as the minimum for the score to mean anything.
- Funded account scaling plan: matters more if your goal is a large funded account, less if you plan to stick with the first tier.
A useful sanity check at this stage: open the firm’s terms of service and run the five-clause read from the retroactive-rule guide on the modification clause, retroactive effect, disqualification grounds, dispute resolution, and wind-down policy. A firm that survives Steps 1–3 but fails the modification-clause read is not a firm you should hand an evaluation fee to in 2026.
A worked example: actually doing this in 30 minutes (snapshot 2026-06-22)
Abstract steps land better with a concrete walk-through. Below is one run, for an FX-style trader, $100–$200 budget, US-resident assumption. Start: the 30+ active firms in our comparison table.
Step 1 (track record) — exclude firms founded after 2022 → about eight remain: FTMO, The5%ers, Topstep, Earn2Trade, Apex, FundedNext, FundingPips, MyFundedFutures.
Step 2 (platforms for your jurisdiction) — for a US resident under MetaQuotes restrictions, keep futures-native firms (Topstep, Earn2Trade, Apex, MyFundedFutures) and FX firms that route through Match-Trader or proprietary platforms; remove anything MT-only without a US-eligible path. For most of the eight, the answer is “still in.” Eight stays.
Step 3 (drawdown model) — assume an active intraday FX style, so push intraday-trailing firms to the back:
- Static (10%): FTMO, The5%ers, FundedNext (2-step), FundingPips (2-Step Standard)
- EOD trailing: Topstep, Earn2Trade, Apex, MyFundedFutures (futures-style, lower base %)
For an active FX profile, the four static firms clear Step 3.
Step 4 (survivors vs survivors, 15 minutes) — compare price, split, and payout track record in the table:
| Firm | Cheapest fee | Max split | Max DD | Trustpilot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTMO | $89+ | 90% | 10% static | data not verifiable |
| The5%ers | $19+ | 100% | 10% static | 4.7 / 30,269 |
| FundedNext | $59.99 | 95% | 10% static | 4.5 / ~60,000+ |
| FundingPips | $29 | 100% | 10% static | 4.5 / 58,747 |
One possible ending: a test evaluation with The5%ers at $19, a main account with FundingPips at $29, a backup with FundedNext at $59.99. Total $108 across three slots; three firms with large independently observable Trustpilot bases; all on 10% static; all three made it through the 2024 platform shock.
This is not “the best combination” — it is the demonstration that the 30-minute process produces a defensible three-firm shortlist for any trader profile. A futures-focused profile gets a different four through Step 3; an aggressive intraday-trailing tolerance keeps all eight on the table. The point is running the process; the answer is yours.
What “done” looks like
You end up with two or three firms. Maybe one is the obvious cheap option for an exploratory evaluation; one is the firm you would scale on; one is a backup if the first two change their rules. You have written down, for each, the platform they will give you and the drawdown model you will be living under. The exercise has taken about half an hour.
That is faster, and far more reliable, than the way most traders pick a firm — which is to read one comparison article and click the affiliate link. The comparison table is designed for this method; the shutdown tracker keeps the disqualification database current; and the methodology page is honest about how we weight the inputs.
You can also export the underlying comparison dataset as JSON or CSV if you want to run the filters yourself.
This page is informational and is not investment advice. Always confirm the current terms on the firm’s official site before funding an account.