Futures · open dataset · verified 2026-01-15
Tradeify Select Evaluation 50K 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
33.5%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 33.0%–34.1%
Consistent trader
48% win rate, 1.6R average winner, 4 trades/day, risking 0.75% per trade
69.7%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 68.9%–70.4%
Proven edge
52% win rate, 1.8R average winner, 3 trades/day, risking 0.5% per trade
95.4%
pass per attempt · 95% CI 94.9%–95.7%
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: select-daily-payout-variant-not-modeled, flex-winning-day-threshold-unverified, trades-resolve-same-day, post-target-min-days-risk-free, consistency-stop-rule, attempts-iid, funded-withdrawal-model, 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 | |
Tradeify · Select Evaluation 50K Futures | 33.5% | +$1,279 | 40.7% | 69.7% | +$3,184 | 73.5% | 95.4% | +$3,973 | 96.3% |
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 evaluation attempt: the developing trader (45% win rate, 1.4R average winner, four trades a day at 1% risk) passes 33.5% (CI 33.0–34.1%), averaging 2.98 attempts and $492 in fees to fund; the consistent trader (48%, 1.6R, 0.75% risk) passes 69.7%; the proven-edge trader (52%, 1.8R, 0.5% risk) passes 95.4%. All simulated failures are trail breaches, with the 40% consistency cap supplying the exposure time: the evaluation prices out almost exactly between the 50%-cap and 30%-cap programs in this dataset, which is where its cap sits.
The funded stage inverts the usual ranking logic. Under the encoded Flex path and our maximum-withdrawal policy, payout probability is respectable (40.7%, 73.5%, 96.3% by profile) but depth is not: accounts drain to the locked floor at each payout and 100% breach within 90 funded trading days, so expected journey value tops out at +$3,973 even for the strongest profile, against +$18,309 and +$20,753 at the buffered futures structures in this dataset. Read that spread with its assumptions attached: the qualifying-day threshold is unverified (encoded generously), the Select Daily alternative is unmodeled, and a less aggressive withdrawal policy would trade early cash for account survival. This is a page where the flags are as informative as the numbers.
The rules, worked through
The evaluation: a $2,000 EOD trail with a 40% consistency clock
The drawdown floor is your highest end-of-day balance minus $2,000: recalculated only at session close, enforced in real time intraday, and permanently locked at $50,100 once your closes have banked enough ($100 above the start, encoded exactly per the firm’s published convention). The consistency rule converts the $3,000 target into max($3,000, best day ÷ 0.40): print a $1,500 day and you owe $3,750. In the 10,000-path developing run every failure was a trail breach: the consistency rule kills indirectly, by forcing extra days in front of a ratcheting floor. The dataset’s matched comparison prices the rule: the same profile passes 44.3% at an equivalent trail-only evaluation with no cap, 38.1% under a 50% cap, 33.5% here at 40%, and 29.2% under a 30% cap.
The funded path we encode, and the one we do not
Passing leads to a one-time choice between two payout policies. We encode Select Flex: payouts unlock after five qualifying winning days per cycle, with no daily loss lockout and no funded consistency rule. The alternative, Select Daily (daily requests capped at $1,000 above a $52,100 buffer with a soft $1,000 daily lockout), is flagged as not modeled, so nothing on this page describes it. One more flag that matters: the dollar threshold for a Flex "qualifying winning day" is unverified, and the dataset encodes it generously as any positive day. If the real threshold is higher, the funded numbers below are optimistic.
Why the simulated funded economics come out thin
Flex has no buffer requirement, and our withdrawal model (flagged in every result) takes the maximum each payout allows without crossing the loss floor. With nothing forcing profit to stay in the account, each payout strips the balance back to the locked floor, and the next losing sequence ends the account: 100% of funded accounts breached within the 90-trading-day horizon at all three profiles, and even the proven-edge profile averaged only 1.6 payouts. Expected journey value: +$1,279 developing, +$3,184 consistent, +$3,973 proven-edge (the smallest spread between weak and strong traders in this dataset, because the structure caps what strength can extract). A trader who deliberately withdraws less than the maximum would keep more cushion than this model assumes; the simulator lets you test gentler policies against the same seed.
Verification status
Entry last verified 2026-01-15 against Tradeify’s help-center articles: the 50K parameters ($3,000 target, $2,000 EOD trail, three-day minimum, 40% evaluation consistency, four-mini contract cap), the trail’s real-time enforcement and $100-above-start lock, and the Flex-versus-Daily payout split are all sourced there. The $165 one-time price is recorded for verification against the firm’s pricing reference, the lock-at-first-payout trail variant is not modeled, and contract scaling is not simulated. Rules change without notice. Tradeify’s own pages are authoritative. Every simulated figure regenerates from seed 42, 10,000 paths, in the on-page simulator.
Where these rules come from
Simulated from the open-source rules dataset entry tradeify/50k-select (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; Tradeify’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.
Simulated at seed 42 with 10,000 Monte Carlo paths per profile: 33.5% per attempt for a 45% win-rate 1.4R trader risking 1%, 69.7% for a 48% win-rate 1.6R trader risking 0.75%, and 95.4% for a 52% win-rate 1.8R trader risking 0.5%. Every simulated failure came from the $2,000 EOD trailing drawdown, with the 40% consistency rule extending time under it. The on-page simulator runs your own statistics against the same encoded rules.