Futures · open dataset · verified 2026-01-15
Apex Trader Funding 50K Full Evaluation pass rate: simulated odds
10,000 Monte Carlo paths per profile at seed 42, on the challenge’s exact published rules. Distributions under stated assumptions, never promises.
Developing trader
45% win rate, 1.4R average winner, 4 trades/day, risking 1% per trade
45.6%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 44.9%–46.3%
Consistent trader
48% win rate, 1.6R average winner, 4 trades/day, risking 0.75% per trade
76.8%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 76.0%–77.5%
Proven edge
52% win rate, 1.8R average winner, 3 trades/day, risking 0.5% per trade
97.7%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 97.4%–98.0%
Seed 42 · 10,000 paths per profile · engine v1.1.2. EV is net of every fee across a full journey (attempts, resets, activation, then 90 funded trading days of gated payouts); payout probability is the chance a funded account collects at least once. Assumptions and unsimulated rules: funded-monthly-fee, first-25k-100pct, trades-resolve-same-day, intra-trade-excursions-not-modeled, post-target-min-days-risk-free, attempts-iid, monthly-billing-approximation, funded-withdrawal-model, funded-consistency-window-approximated, calendar-days-approximated, trading-constraints-not-simulated. Details reproduce in the simulator run.
Precomputed odds
Not a ranking: simulated odds for three reference profiles.| Challenge | Developing trader | Consistent trader | Proven edge | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass % | EV | Payout | Pass % | EV | Payout | Pass % | EV | Payout | |
Apex Trader Funding · 50K Full Evaluation Futures | 45.6% | +$2,730 | 26.5% | 76.8% | +$8,481 | 71.2% | 97.7% | +$9,311 | 97.1% |
Seed 42 · 10,000 paths per cell · engine v1.1.2. Deterministic Monte Carlo: same seed, same numbers. Pass % is per attempt, with its 95% CI on hover; EV is net of every fee. Assumptions and unsimulated rules are listed in each challenge’s simulator view.
What the numbers say
Simulated at seed 42, 10,000 paths per archetype: reproduce every number in the simulator on this page. Per attempt, the developing trader (45% win rate, 1.4R average winner, four trades a day at 1% risk) passes 45.6% (CI 44.9–46.3%), the best marginal-profile evaluation odds of the futures entries in this dataset, a direct consequence of a $2,500 trail with no daily limit and no consistency rule. The consistent trader (48%, 1.6R, 0.75% risk) passes 76.8%; the proven-edge trader (52%, 1.8R, 0.5% risk) passes 97.7%. Every simulated failure, at every profile, is a trailing-threshold breach.
Then the funnel inverts: only 26.5% of the developing profile’s funded accounts ever collect a payout (the five-$100-winning-days requirement plus the 30% best-day window consistency, simulated directly, filters harder than the evaluation ever did), and expected journey value lands at +$2,730 against +$8,481 consistent and +$9,311 proven-edge. Those EVs exclude the unmodeled monthly Performance Account fee (they are optimistic) and the unmodeled 100%-of-first-$25K policy (pessimistic); the flags ship with every simulator result. The clean takeaway from the distribution: Apex sells the easiest entry and defends the exit. Judge it by your odds of five qualifying winning days under a locked $50,100 floor, not by the 45.6%.
The rules, worked through
The trailing threshold counts profits you never banked
Apex’s trail ratchets on peak equity including open, unrealized positions, the strictest of the four max-loss modes we simulate. Worked example at this account’s numbers: a trade floats to +$1,900, so your peak is $51,900 and the threshold rises to $49,400; the trade fades and you exit at +$100. You lost nothing on the trade, but your cushion shrank from $2,500 to $700 ($50,100 in equity against a $49,400 threshold), permanently, because the threshold never retreats. Touching $49,400 on a later float ends the account. The threshold stops rising at $50,100 (once peak equity reaches $52,600), after which a dip to $50,150 survives and $50,050 does not: the $100 lock offset is encoded exactly. Same headline "trailing $2,500" as an end-of-day trail, radically different geometry: in our reference orderings the intraday-unrealized mode is strictly the harshest at equal size.
What is not in the rulebook matters too
There is no daily loss limit and no consistency requirement in the evaluation, and the dataset encodes a one-trading-day practical minimum. That absence is measurable: the same developing profile that passes 29.2% at the strictest consistency-rule evaluation in this dataset passes 45.6% here, and 100% of its simulated failures come from the trailing threshold because nothing else can fail you. The subscription model prices persistence: $167 per month (approximated in simulation as one charge per 21 trading days) with $80 resets, producing expected evaluation costs of $280 for the developing profile, $197 consistent, $175 proven-edge.
The funded stage is the actual filter
The Performance Account keeps the same trailing mechanics (locked at $50,100) and adds the gates the engine simulates directly: each payout window requires at least five winning days of $100 or more, the best day must stay within 30% of the window’s profit, and withdrawals can never take the balance below the $50,100 threshold. Under our maximum-withdrawal policy (flagged in every result), those gates plus the locked floor produce a stark pattern: around 98% of funded accounts breach within the 90-trading-day horizon at every profile. The strong ones collect first, the weak ones do not. Payout probability: 26.5% developing, 71.2% consistent, 97.1% proven-edge; median first payout among collectors arrives roughly 20 to 30 funded trading days in, reflecting the encoded 14-day first-cycle minimum plus the winning-day accumulation.
Flags you should price before trusting any EV
Two encoded omissions cut in opposite directions. The monthly Performance Account data fee (around $85 per month on Rithmic, or one-time lifetime options) is not modeled: real funded costs are higher than simulated. The published policy of keeping 100% of the first $25,000 per account is also not modeled: real trader share early on is better than the simulated flat 90/10. The dataset further notes that Apex policy versions change frequently; this entry was last verified 2026-01-15, and the firm’s help center overrides anything here. All quoted numbers are seeded Monte Carlo output (seed 42, 10,000 paths), reproducible in the on-page simulator.
Where these rules come from
Simulated from the open-source rules dataset entry apex-trader-funding/50k-evaluation (last verified 2026-01-15, against the firm’s published terms and cited sources), simulated with the open-source engine at github.com/LuxAlgo/prop-firm-sim. Rules change; Apex Trader Funding’s own page is authoritative. Every number above is a seeded Monte Carlo estimate: re-run the same inputs and you get the same digits.
These are reference profiles. You are not one.
Open this exact challenge in the simulator (it restores the encoded rules at seed 42 and runs), then swap in your own win rate, R-multiples, and risk.
Frequent questions.
Yes, and that is the defining fact: the threshold ratchets upward with your peak equity including unrealized, open-position highs, in real time, and never comes back down. Profit you see but do not take still consumes your cushion permanently. It stops trailing at $50,100 ($100 above the starting balance) once your peak reaches $52,600, and the same mechanics carry into the funded Performance Account. Verified against the published rules 2026-01-15.