Futures · open dataset · verified 2026-01-15
TakeProfit Trader 50K Test 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
44.3%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 43.6%–44.9%
Consistent trader
48% win rate, 1.6R average winner, 4 trades/day, risking 0.75% per trade
72.9%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 72.1%–73.6%
Proven edge
52% win rate, 1.8R average winner, 3 trades/day, risking 0.5% per trade
95.6%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 95.2%–96.0%
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: below-buffer-interim-payout-terms-not-modeled, trades-resolve-same-day, post-target-min-days-risk-free, attempts-iid, monthly-billing-approximation, funded-withdrawal-model. 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 | |
TakeProfit Trader · 50K Test Futures | 44.3% | +$1,348 | 49.1% | 72.9% | +$5,840 | 76.1% | 95.6% | +$18,309 | 95.9% |
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 figure in the simulator on this page. The developing trader (45% win rate, 1.4R average winner, four trades a day at 1% risk) passes 44.3% of attempts (CI 43.6–44.9%), the best marginal-profile odds among the $2,000-EOD-trail evaluations in this dataset, purely because no consistency rule extends time under the floor. The consistent trader (48%, 1.6R, 0.75% risk) passes 72.9%; the proven-edge trader (52%, 1.8R, 0.5% risk) passes 95.6%. Expected journey value (subscription cycles, the $130 activation, then 90 funded trading days at 80% above the $52,000 buffer) lands at +$1,348 developing, +$5,840 consistent, +$18,309 proven-edge.
The shape of those EVs is instructive. The marginal profile passes nearly half its attempts but converts poorly afterward: 49.1% of its funded accounts collect at least one payout and 100% breach within the horizon, so the evaluation’s friendliness does not carry through funding. The proven-edge profile, by contrast, benefits twice: an ungated evaluation and a buffered payout structure that keeps its funded account alive (40.4% breached versus roughly 98–100% at the cap-free and consistency-gated structures here). As always: Monte Carlo distributions under stated assumptions (monthly billing approximated, below-buffer withdrawal terms unmodeled), with the seed printed so you can rerun everything.
The rules, worked through
One rule to survive: the $2,000 EOD trail
The floor starts at $48,000 and equals your highest end-of-day balance minus $2,000; it moves only on closes, but breach is effective whenever the account touches it. Close day one at $50,800 and the floor is $48,800. An intraday push to $51,900 that fades before the close moves nothing. Once your best close reaches $52,000 the floor locks at $50,000, the starting balance, and stops trailing for good: from that point the worst case is breakeven-and-out. Until then the arithmetic is unforgiving in the usual EOD-trail way: every strong close ratchets the floor up behind you, so giving back a good day costs twice. In the 10,000-path runs, 100% of failed attempts at every profile ended on this floor, because there is nothing else to hit.
No consistency rule: the target is just $3,000
This dataset happens to contain a controlled comparison: four futures evaluations with a $3,000 target and a $2,000 EOD trail whose main difference is the best-day consistency cap. The marginal developing profile passes 44.3% here with no cap, 38.1% under Topstep’s 50%, 33.5% under Tradeify’s 40%, and 29.2% under MyFundedFutures’ 30%. A big day at TakeProfit Trader simply banks; nowhere does it raise what you owe. The five-trading-day minimum is enforced in simulation, with the engine’s stated assumption that a trader who has already hit the target grinds remaining minimum days without risk.
The bill: subscription in, activation out
The Test bills $170 per month (approximated in simulation as one charge per 21 trading days) and the funded PRO account costs a one-time $130 to activate. Expected all-in cost to reach funding: $318 for the developing profile across 2.26 average attempts, $307 consistent, $307 proven-edge. The monthly model means even strong traders pay at least one cycle plus activation, and unlike several CFD programs nothing refunds on passing. Recorded pricing is from the firm’s public pages as of 2026-01-15; the dataset notes its deep FAQ links were not individually confirmed, so verify against the live site.
Funded PRO economics: day-one requests, but the split starts at $52,000
The encoded PRO terms: payouts can be requested from day one, as often as daily, with the standard 80% split applying to profit above a buffer equal to the starting balance plus the maximum drawdown ($52,000 on this account). The buffer is simulated: withdrawals only take what sits above it, which structurally forces the account to keep a $2,000 cushion over its locked $50,000 floor. That cushion shows up in the survival numbers: 59.6% of proven-edge funded accounts lived through the full 90-trading-day horizon (median first payout among collectors: about six funded days), while marginal-profile accounts still breached 100% of the time. The different terms for withdrawing below the buffer are flagged as not modeled. Verified 2026-01-15; the firm’s site is authoritative as terms change.
Where these rules come from
Simulated from the open-source rules dataset entry take-profit-trader/50k-test (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; TakeProfit Trader’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.
It is a function of your statistics, not a constant: seeded Monte Carlo (seed 42, 10,000 paths per profile) gives 44.3% per attempt for a 45% win-rate 1.4R trader risking 1%, 72.9% for a 48% win-rate 1.6R trader risking 0.75%, and 95.6% for a 52% win-rate 1.8R trader risking 0.5%. Every simulated failure came from the $2,000 EOD trailing drawdown, the Test’s only hard loss rule. Run your own numbers in the on-page simulator.