Audacity Capital
Trust: HighSpecifications
| Profit split | 50%–75% |
|---|---|
| Max funding | Up to £480,000 |
| Challenge fee | Varies by program / training |
| Payout track record | Published |
| Payout cycle | Monthly |
| Platforms | MT4 · MT5 |
| Evaluation | Multiple |
| Drawdown model | EOD trailing |
| Daily loss limit | 7.5% |
| Max drawdown | 15% |
| Sources | [1][2][3] |
| Website | https://audacitycapital.co.uk/ |
Strengths
- One of the longest-running prop firms (since 2012)
- UK / FCA-adjacent regulatory environment
- Combined evaluation + mentorship programs
Watch-outs
- Lower starting profit splits than incumbents
- Multiple programs to navigate
- Complex fee structure
What Audacity Capital is
Audacity Capital is a London-based proprietary trading firm that has been operating since 2012, which makes it one of the longest-running firms in the entire prop space. By contrast, most of today’s well-known names are post-2020 entrants. That history alone puts Audacity in a small group of operators with a verifiable, multi-cycle track record.
The firm’s approach blends evaluation with structured mentorship. Rather than positioning itself purely as a fast-funding shop, Audacity routes traders through programs that combine performance criteria with educational content. The trade-off is visible in the economics: starting profit splits sit between 50% and 75%, which is below the 80%–90% that newer firms advertise as a baseline.
How the programs work
Audacity offers two main tracks. The Funded Trader Program is the traditional evaluation route, where traders pay a fee, hit performance criteria, and progress to a funded account. The Accelerated Program layers mentorship and progressive funding on top, and is the firm’s signature offering.
Funding scales up to £480,000 through stepped account growth, though the path involves consistent performance over multiple cycles rather than a single explosive month. Payouts run on a monthly cycle, which is slower than the 5- to 14-day options now common at newer firms.
Who Audacity fits
Audacity is a reasonable fit for:
- Traders who value firm longevity over headline profit splits.
- Anyone who wants structured mentorship alongside a funded account rather than pure self-direction.
- Long-horizon traders willing to give up some upside in return for a counterparty that has survived more than one industry cycle.
The London base and FCA-adjacent regulatory environment also matter for international traders worried about jurisdictional risk. The UK has clearer financial regulation than several of the offshore jurisdictions where newer prop firms are domiciled.
Who Audacity does not fit
If you optimise purely on profit split, Audacity will lose to most modern competitors on the spreadsheet. A 50%–75% split is a real gap versus 80%–90% elsewhere. Active scalpers chasing high-frequency payouts will also find the monthly cycle slow.
The fee structure can be hard to parse because pricing varies by program and tier. Expect to spend more time reading terms than at firms with flat one-time evaluation fees.
What to watch
- Profit split tiers: confirm exactly which split applies to your program before purchasing. The headline range is wide.
- Program selection: the Accelerated track is conceptually different from a standard evaluation. Read what is actually being offered.
- Funding currency: the £480,000 ceiling is in pounds. Currency conversion matters for international traders.
How Audacity compares
Against FTMO, the most-cited incumbent, Audacity has an even longer operating record (2012 vs. 2015) but lower profit splits and a less polished evaluation flow. Against The5%ers, another firm from a similar generation, Audacity leans more into mentorship while The5%ers leans into program variety. The pick depends on whether you value education and longevity or pure economic upside.
Our take
A 10-plus-year operating record is, frankly, industry-best — almost nobody else has been around that long. For traders willing to trade some upside for long-term trust, Audacity is one of a handful of credible options. We would not pick it as a pure economics play, but as a stability play it is among the most defensible choices in the segment.