Flat $220 · Any firm · Any account size
Prop Firm Passing Service: What You Pay, What You Get, and What Gets Checked First
A prop firm passing service takes your funded-account evaluation off your hands: the target is reached by someone else, the failure risk is ours while the evaluation runs, and the account comes back to you in a state that meets your firm's conditions. Before you pay anything, you can watch the same plan traded on a free demo account for seven days.
The terms check comes before the fee. Around one firm in five prohibits third-party trading, and where it does we decline the work rather than sell the pass.
1. What a prop firm passing service is
A prop firm passing service is a paid arrangement in which someone other than the account holder completes a prop firm evaluation. You buy the attempt, not a strategy and not a signal feed. The deliverable is a challenge or verification phase that has reached its profit target while staying inside every rule the firm imposes — daily loss, maximum loss, drawdown type, minimum trading days and, at some firms, a consistency cap on how much of the profit any single day may contribute.
The economics are the reason the category exists. A typical evaluation costs the trader $500 at a $100k size, and most attempts fail, so the real cost of getting funded on your own is the fee multiplied by the number of attempts it takes. That multiplier is invisible when you buy attempt one and very visible when you are buying attempt four. A passing service replaces an unknown number of fee payments with one known payment, and it moves the failure risk onto the party doing the trading.
One flat fee, one deliverable, and a failure risk that is not yours while the evaluation runs.
Terms check
Your firm and plan are read against their own rules. Free, and it comes first.
Demo test
Optional: we trade your broker demo for seven days so you see the process.
Flat $220
Any firm, any size. Retries covered while the evaluation is running.
The pass
Target reached inside the rulebook, on the firm's minimum-day schedule.
Handover
Account returned documented. The funded phase is yours.
Not every business selling under this name works the same way, and the differences matter far more than the headline price. There are three delivery models in the market:
- A trader trades your evaluation. A human runs the account against the firm's rules, reaches the target, and returns the login. This is the model most buyers assume they are buying, and it is the one every provider in the price table below is selling.
- An algorithm trades it. An expert advisor or a script is attached to your account and passes the evaluation mechanically. Some of these are sold as software you install yourself, which is a different purchase entirely — you are buying a tool and keeping the risk, not buying the outcome.
- The firm's own reset or deferral. The phrase "pay to pass" also gets used for a firm letting you defer its activation fee or settle the challenge fee out of your first payout — sometimes advertised as a refundable challenge fee. That is a payment plan from the firm, not a passing service, and nobody trades anything on your behalf.
We pass your prop firm challenge — the precise version of that promise
The phrase is used loosely across the market, so here is exactly what it commits to. We pass your prop firm challenge means the evaluation's target is reached by us, against your firm's own published rulebook, with the failure risk carried by us for as long as the evaluation is running, and the account returned to you complete and documented. What it does not mean: the funded phase is not passed for you, and no payout is assured, because the funded account has its own drawdown and its own consistency condition. Anyone selling the phrase without that second sentence is selling the first half of an arrangement and keeping the part that matters to themselves.
Whatever the phrasing — pass prop firm challenge for me, passing prop firm challenge, pass the prop firm challenge, pay to pass prop firm challenge, we pass your prop firm challenge — the purchase is the same one: the attempt, the failure risk carried while it runs, and the account handed back complete. The terms check decides whether that purchase is worth making at your firm, it takes one message, and it comes first.
2. What it is not — four things being sold under the same name
Because "prop firm passing service" has no definition anybody enforces, a lot of unrelated products use it. A prop firm challenge passing service and a prop firm passing service are the same purchase described two ways, but a signal channel, a mirror account and a rented funded login all get sold under the phrase too. Four of them are worth separating out before you compare prices, because two are worthless to you and two carry risks you did not sign up for.
Not a signal service
Signals tell you when to enter. They do nothing about the rule that actually ends most challenges, which is the drawdown. A trader with good signals and no risk framework breaches the daily loss limit in one bad session, and no amount of signal quality prevents that. If a provider's offer is a Telegram channel, you are not buying a pass.
Not copy trading or a mirror account
Mirroring another trader's positions onto your evaluation account sounds equivalent to having them trade it, and in one respect it is worse: you still hold the account, you still own every rule breach, and the correlation between your account and theirs is a fact the firm can see. Where a firm prohibits third-party trading, copying is normally the exact behaviour the clause was written to catch.
Not a rented funded account
A pre-passed account sold or rented to you is not an evaluation pass. The firm's funded-account terms require the account holder to be the person trading, and the payout is where that gets checked — after you have paid, after you have traded, and usually after a profit has been made on an account that will not pay it out. The failure mode is not "you lose the $300"; it is losing the months of trading and the payout that was nearly yours.
Not a guaranteed payout
A prop firm passing service ends at the evaluation. The funded account then has its own target, its own drawdown rules and, at many firms, a consistency requirement before the first withdrawal. Passing the evaluation does not make the payout automatic, and any provider implying otherwise is describing something they cannot control. What a pass does is convert a risk you carry repeatedly into a result you receive once.
The clean test. Ask what you receive at the end. A pass hands you an account that has met the firm's conditions. Anything else — a strategy document, a course, a channel invite, a login that belongs to somebody else — is a different product with the words "passing service" attached for search reasons.
Free trial · No card · No obligation
3. Free 7-day demo test before you spend anything
You should not have to take a passing service on faith. Open a free demo account with any broker you already use, send the login, and we will trade it for seven days while you watch. You keep the login, so you can check the account whenever you like, and there is nothing to buy afterwards.
How the seven days work
- You open a demo account. Any broker you already use, and any platform they offer. Most brokers create a demo in a couple of minutes from the platform or the client area. You do not fund anything, and a demo cannot be funded anyway.
- You send the demo login on Telegram. The demo login is the only thing we ask for. Nothing else — see the note below on what never to send.
- We trade it for seven days under a written plan. The plan is built for the demo's balance and the requirements you set, not copied from another account, and it is sent to you before the first trade.
- You watch, and you judge the process. Entry timing, how risk is sized against the limit, how a losing session is handled, how quickly questions are answered. That is what the week is for.
- You decide. Continue with a paid evaluation, ask about anything in the log, or stop. Walking away costs nothing and there is no follow-up sales sequence.
Equity against the two levels that decide an evaluation: the profit target and the loss floor. The behaviour at the floor is the part worth watching.
Illustrative of the shape to expect, not a performance record. The demo test exists so the shape is yours to inspect before any money moves.
What the demo test proves
- Whether the process is real. A week of trades with entries, exits and sizing you can read is hard to fake, and a service with nothing to show will stall the request.
- How risk is handled when it goes wrong. Anyone can show a winning week. The losing session is where the drawdown habit shows, and it is the only part that predicts how a real evaluation will be treated.
- How fast you get answers. Communication is the most common complaint about this category, and seven days of questions settles it.
What it cannot prove
- A prop firm's rules are not a demo's rules. A demo has no daily loss breach, no verification stage and no minimum trading days.
- The feed is different. Spreads, slippage and order handling on a prop firm feed differ from a retail broker demo.
- It says nothing about payouts. Passing and keeping a funded account are different jobs, and the demo tests neither payout rules nor consistency at payout.
Seven days is a sample of process, not a forecast. The honest way to use the trial is as a filter — it can lose us a client, and that is the point of offering it.
To be precise about what it is, because the phrase gets stretched elsewhere: a broker demo account, not a free prop firm account and not a free challenge. The money you are not spending is the evaluation fee, and what you are buying with your week is information — which is the only thing worth having before you pay for a pass.
What to send, and what never to send. A demo login, and nothing else. Never send a live-account password, card details, identity documents or access to your email. No demo trial, evaluation or funded account has ever needed them, and any request for them is the end of the conversation.
4. How it works, step by step
The sequence is short and it is the same every time. What varies is the honesty of step one, which is why it is first.
Step 1 — The terms check, before any money moves
You name your firm and the exact plan you are trading. The clause that decides everything is the one governing who is permitted to trade the account — sometimes written as third-party or external account management, sometimes as "the account holder must be the only person placing trades", sometimes absent entirely, which is its own problem because your firm then decides case by case. We read that from the firm's own published document, quote the sentence, and answer yes or no.
Around one firm in five is a no. That answer is given before payment. A provider that takes the fee first has accepted your money on the single question it was supposed to answer, and you have no remedy if the answer turns out to be no.
Step 2 — The free demo test, if you want one
Seven days on your own broker demo, traded on a written plan you receive first. It is optional and it exists because the alternative is trusting a page like this one. Details are in the section above.
Step 3 — Choosing the evaluation, not just the account size
The size determines the dollar figures and almost nothing else. What actually changes the assignment is phase count, drawdown type and minimum trading days. A 2-step challenge with a static 10% maximum loss is a different job from a 1-step evaluation with a 6% trailing threshold, and the trailing one is harder in a way a size comparison will never show you. This is the point where a firm's menu gets narrowed to the one plan worth buying.
Step 4 — The fee, flat, at any size
One payment for the evaluation, whatever the account size. The fee prices the work of passing a rulebook, and the work does not scale with the account. A $200k evaluation is not ten times the work of a $20k evaluation; the targets are the same percentages and the rules are the same rules. That is the whole argument for flat pricing, and it is why a percentage-of-target model ends up charging most for the accounts that are least difficult per dollar of target.
Step 5 — The pass, run to the firm's conditions
The account is traded against the plan the rulebook forces. Risk per position is set from the daily limit rather than from conviction, the target is approached in a sequence that respects any minimum-day rule, and where a consistency rule exists the profit is paced so no single session carries too much of the total. If the evaluation is failed while it is being run, the retry is ours, not another fee of yours.
Step 6 — Handover, with the account in a state that passes review
You get the account back with the target met and the rules intact, documented — what was reached, on which dates, against which version of the rulebook. The handover matters more than it sounds, because firms review the evaluation before funding it and an account whose numbers do not add up is a problem regardless of whether the target was reached.
Step 7 — The funded phase, which is yours
Passing the evaluation is the start of a new rulebook, not the end of the arrangement. The funded account has its own drawdown, usually a consistency condition before the first payout, and a payout schedule. Nothing about how the evaluation was passed changes any of it. Knowing the funded rules before you take the account is the difference between a pass that earns and a pass you cannot draw from.
5. Prop firm passing service price in 2026, and what the retry term does to it
Price comparisons in this niche are usually wrong within a quarter, because most of them do not say when they were compiled. Every figure below was read from the provider's own pricing page on 2026-10-20, and a figure that could not be tied to a specific account size is shown as not published rather than estimated.
| Provider | At $100k | At $200k | Fee model |
|---|---|---|---|
| ElitePropX source | $220 | $220 | Flat fee, any account size, retries covered while the evaluation runs |
| ThePropFirmPass source | £449 (~$565) | Not published | Rises with account size, from £349 |
| PassYourProp source | $588 | $1,158 | Size tiers |
| Pass Prop Challenges source | $400 | $700 | Size tiers, $100–$1,000 |
| Funded Traders Passing | Not published | Not published | Quote only |
Fee model is the column that decides the real cost. A price that rises with account size and a flat price are not the same product at different numbers, and a fee quoted per attempt is not comparable to one that includes retries while the evaluation runs.
The headline fee is not the price. Once a failed attempt costs you another full fee, the cheaper provider is often the more expensive one.
Illustrative arithmetic at a 40% first-attempt success rate: a $400 fee charged on every retry has an expected cost per funded account of about $1,000. Your own numbers depend on the provider and the rulebook. The point is the direction of the comparison, not the digits.
The number that is missing from every comparison table
What a failed attempt costs under each model is the figure that actually determines what you spend, and almost nobody publishes it. Consider two providers: one charges $400 and charges full price again after a failure, the other charges $588 and covers the retry. At a 40% first-attempt success rate, the $400 provider's expected cost per funded account is $400 ÷ 0.4, or about $1,000, before the second failure inside the retry path is counted. The $588 provider's expected cost is $588. The cheaper headline is the more expensive service, and no price table shows that because the retry term lives in checkout or in a support reply.
Two questions settle it, and both should be answered in writing before you pay:
- If the evaluation fails while you are paying for it, what do I owe for the next attempt?
- Does that answer change at $200,000, where several providers raise their price?
The second question is not a trick. Two of the five providers in the table above change their price at the larger size, which means their advertised figure is a floor rather than a price. A flat fee is worth less than it sounds if it is flat for accounts you are not buying.
Charge per funded account, not per attempt
Once you price the retry, the comparison changes shape. Divide each provider's fee by their first-attempt pass rate and you get cost per funded account, which is the only number that compares to the alternative of paying the firm repeatedly. If the firm charges $500 per attempt and you take four attempts to pass, the firm has cost you $2,000. A $220 pass costs $220. That is the entire commercial argument for the category, and it holds regardless of which provider you buy from.
6. The terms clause that decides whether a pass is worth anything
This is the section to read before anything else on this page, including our own price.
Every prop firm's terms define who may trade the account. The wording varies: some firms permit account management explicitly, some are silent, and some prohibit any person other than the account holder from placing trades. That clause, not the profit target, determines whether a prop firm passing service is a legitimate purchase for you or a way to spend $220 on something that gets voided at payout.
The failure mode is specific and worth understanding, because it does not happen at the evaluation. A firm that prohibits third-party trading will usually fund the account anyway — the evaluation review checks the numbers, not who was typing. The prohibition surfaces later, when you request a payout on a funded account, when the review looks at whether the account holder operated the account and the pattern of trading is inconsistent with the account holder's history. At that point the account can be closed and the profit withheld, and the evaluation fee, the passing fee and the trading time are all gone together.
What the check actually involves
- The clause is read, not assumed. Not from a comparison article, not from a competitor's summary, and not from us. From your firm's own terms page or client agreement, on the date you are buying.
- The plan matters as much as the firm. Firms running several products publish rules per plan, and a clause that permits management on one plan may not appear in another. Name the plan, not just the brand.
- Silence is an answer, and not always a good one. A firm with no stated position is not a firm that permits the arrangement; it is a firm that reserves the decision. Treat an unstated position as a risk you are accepting knowingly.
- The funded account's terms are a separate document. Evaluation terms and funded terms are published separately at every firm listed here. A clause that covers the evaluation says nothing about the payout stage.
The honest position. Where your firm prohibits third-party trading, we decline the work and it is not a sale we lose gracefully — paying for a pass that cannot survive the payout review is worse than not buying one. Where the clause permits it or the firm has no stated prohibition and you accept the risk, the terms check is documented and the pass proceeds.
If you want the version of this that decides the sale in the first message: send your firm, the exact plan name, and the account size on Telegram. The answer comes back with the sentence from the terms that supports it, before any payment question comes up.
7. The four rulebook families that decide a pass
The target percentage is the number everyone quotes and the least interesting figure in the rulebook. Four other families decide whether a plan survives contact with the rules.
The same target, the same percentages, three completely different assignments. The line that ends the account is the one that matters.
Minimum trading days
A target can be reached in three sessions. An evaluation that requires ten days cannot be finished in three. This single rule sets the honest timeline, which is why any quoted number of days means nothing without the firm named — the same target with a four-day minimum and a ten-day minimum are two different schedules, and only one of them can be delivered in under a week.
Consistency
Some firms cap the share of total profit any one day may contribute, often at 30% to 50%. This is the worst rule to breach, because it does not fail the evaluation — the target is reached and the account passes. It withholds the payout instead. A plan that reaches the target in three large sessions clears the target and fails the rule, which is the outcome with the least visible cause and the highest cost.
News and holding restrictions
Prohibitions on trading scheduled releases or holding through the weekend change when a position may be open rather than how large it may be. They matter most for plans that would otherwise run positions for days to accumulate profit slowly, and they are the rule most often discovered after a breach rather than before it.
The firms recorded in this snapshot
Read from each firm's own documentation on 2026-10-21. Follow the source link on each row to the page the figures came from. Funded-account and payout conditions are separate documents at every firm listed and are not covered here.
| Firm and plan | Phase 1 target | Phase 2 target | Daily loss | Max loss | Drawdown | Min days | Consistency | Time limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTMO — 2-Step Challenge source | 10% | 5% | 5% | 10% | Static | 4 | None at evaluation | None |
| FundedNext — Stellar 2-Step (CFDs) source | 8% | 5% | 5% | 10% | Static | 5 | Confirm at checkout | None |
| The5ers — High Stakes source | 10% | 5% | 5% | 10% | Static | 3 profitable days | None stated | None |
| Firm | Target | Max loss | Drawdown | Daily limit | Consistency | Account range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apex Trader Funding source | Fixed dollar target per account size | Dollar threshold: $1,000 / $2,000 / $3,000 / $4,000 by size | End-of-day or intraday trailing, plan-dependent | Fixed on end-of-day plans ($500–$2,000 by size); via the trailing floor on intraday plans | 50% best day at payout (30% on legacy accounts) | Up to $300,000 |
| Topstep source | $3,000 / $6,000 / $9,000 | $2,000 / $3,000 / $4,500 | End-of-day trailing, locks at the starting balance | Optional at checkout: $1,000 / $2,000 / $3,000 | 55% best day versus target in the Combine; 40% only on the optional consistency payout path | $50,000–$150,000 |
Read the drawdown column before the target column. The target tells you where the finish line is. The drawdown type tells you whether you reach it, and at what point a good day stops being good. Every plan in the tables above is passable; the reason most attempts fail is not the target, it is a rule in this section.
8. How a challenge is actually traded, with the arithmetic
Nothing about a prop firm passing service is secret; the method is ordinary risk management applied to an unusual constraint. There are no secrets to passing prop trading challenges — there is a rulebook, read properly, and risk sized from it, which is why the arithmetic below is worth more than any method being sold. What makes it work is that the rules are arithmetic rather than judgement, so the plan can be derived before a single position is opened.
Take a standard 2-step forex evaluation at $100,000: a 10% phase-one target, a 5% daily loss limit and a 10% maximum loss. In dollars that is $10,000 to make, $5,000 you cannot lose in a day, and $10,000 you cannot lose at all.
The sizing comes from the daily limit, not from conviction
Risk 0.5% of the account — $500 — per position. A 2R winner is $1,000. To breach the daily limit at that size you would need ten losers in one session, which is the point: it is not a constraint the plan has to tiptoe around, it is a constraint the plan has already made irrelevant. The same target at 4% risk per position requires three losses in a day to end the account, and three losses happen.
Expectancy sets the pace
At 0.5% risk with a 60% win rate and an average 2R winner, expectancy is 0.6 × 2R − 0.4 × 1R = 0.8R, or $400 per trade. The $10,000 target is 25 trades at that expectancy. Spread across five sessions that is five trades a day, which is unremarkable for anyone trading an intraday method — and the whole plan is derived from three numbers in the rulebook plus one assumption about win rate.
Where the plan changes between phases
Phase two is usually half the target of phase one, so the pacing changes while the drawdown rules do not. The most common error at this stage is treating the smaller target as licence to increase size; the daily limit is unchanged, so the effect of raising risk in phase two is to move the account closer to the one rule that can still end it. A minimum-day rule cuts the other way, forcing the profit to be spread rather than concentrated, which is why a plan that passed phase one in three sessions often needs a different sequence to finish phase two.
What consistency does to the sequence
Where a consistency rule applies, the target is no longer the only finishing condition. If 40% of total profit must not come from one day, a $10,000 target caps any single session at $4,000, whether or not the account could have made more. The plan becomes a pacing exercise, and drifting into the session that makes the target also makes a payout problem. This is the rule that most often separates providers who reach a target from providers who deliver an account that pays.
9. Forex evaluations and futures evaluations are different jobs
Futures evaluations are sold by the same firms and are often assumed to be the same work on different instruments. They are not. Three things change, and each one alters the plan rather than the decoration — and they are the reason a futures prop firm evaluation and a forex prop firm evaluation cannot share a plan.
Rules are denominated in dollars, not percentages
A futures firm publishes a $3,000 target and a $2,000 maximum loss on a $50,000 account rather than a percentage of anything. That means the difficulty changes with the contract you trade, not with the account size. Two traders on identical rulebooks with identical skill can have completely different outcomes because of a sizing decision made at the start.
The same $2,000 loss limit, expressed in points. The instrument you choose sets how much room the account actually has.
Sizing at a futures firm is a whole-contract decision. On a $50,000 account a single ES contract moves the account $50 a point, so the plan is built around the contract rather than around a percentage that cannot be expressed.
Contract quantisation replaces percentage sizing
You cannot trade 0.5 micro contracts. Position size moves in whole contracts, so the granularity of risk is set by the product: a micro is a fine control, a mini is a coarse one. On a $50,000 futures account, one mini S&P contract is a meaningful fraction of the daily limit as soon as its stop is a few points wide, and the plan has to be built around that rather than around a percentage that cannot be expressed.
Trailing thresholds respond to unrealised profit
Several futures firms trail the threshold on open profit, including intraday. A position showing $2,000 of unrealised gain has already raised the floor under the account, so a retracement can end the evaluation on a day that closes flat or positive. On a 2-step forex challenge with a static maximum loss, none of that is true. The practical difference is that futures rewards banking profit early and punishes letting a winner run to its target — the opposite of the habit that works on a static-drawdown forex evaluation.
What this means for buying a pass
A provider that treats them as interchangeable is quoting from a template. The questions that distinguish a real futures plan are narrow: which contracts, how the threshold trails on your firm's specific plan, and what the daily limit does when it is set at checkout rather than by the rulebook. If those get vague answers, the provider is pricing a forex challenge with a futures word in the title. Anyone writing about how to pass a Topstep combine or an Apex evaluation without naming the contract and the trailing rule is describing the same template.
10. What can go wrong, stated without the padding
Every service in this category carries risks, and the ones that matter are not the risks most providers list. Here are the four that actually cost money.
The funded phase can still fail
A pass satisfies the evaluation. It does not satisfy the funded account, which has its own drawdown, its own target and usually a consistency requirement before the first withdrawal. A trader who receives a passed account and immediately trades it at three times the risk the evaluation plan used can end the funded account in a week, and no part of that is covered by what was bought. The evaluation is the beginning of the arrangement, and treating it as the finish line is the most expensive misreading of what a prop firm passing service does.
Terms can move after you have paid the firm
Small and newly launched firms revise their rulebooks often, and some revise them retroactively. An account passed under one version of a rulebook can be judged under another, which is a risk that sits with the firm's discretion. The mitigation is not a service, it is arithmetic: the longer an evaluation takes, the wider the window for the rules to move underneath it.
The payout is where the terms clause is tested
As covered above: a firm that prohibits third-party trading often funds the account anyway and withholds at the payout. Where the clause is unclear, the risk is real and it is disclosed here rather than discovered later. It is the single reason this page puts the terms check before the price.
Where a firm's terms prohibit the arrangement, the risk is not ours to manage on your behalf: buying a pass does not make it permitted, and no provider can make it permitted by asserting otherwise.
Retroactive fairness is not a thing
If a firm changes its drawdown from static to trailing while your evaluation is running, the account can fail under rules that did not exist when you bought the plan. Some firms honour the rulebook as it stood at purchase; some do not. This is disclosed here because it is the one risk a provider cannot price, and because finding it out after a failed pass is the version of this that costs you twice.
11. Passing it yourself or paying someone: the break-even
This is not a question of talent. It is a question of how many attempts you would take, and that number is more predictable than most traders believe.
Set the firm's fee at $500 per attempt at a $100k size and take a first-attempt pass rate of 20%. Your expected number of attempts is five, so the expected firm cost alone is $2,500 — and that is before counting the time each attempt takes, which at a four-week evaluation is roughly five months of calendar time. Run the same arithmetic at a 40% pass rate and it becomes $1,250 across about ten weeks. The number that decides the comparison is not the fee, it is the attempts multiplier.
Against that, a flat fee is a single, known quantity. At $220 the fee is under half the cost of one attempt at a $100k size, which is the honest way to compare them: not "$220 versus $2,500", but "$220 versus the first attempt you were going to buy anyway, with the retries no longer priced separately".
There is a real cost on the other side of the ledger, and it belongs in the arithmetic. Reading a rulebook until you can trade it is a transferable skill: someone who has worked out how to pass an FTMO challenge knows how to hold the funded account it leads to, and that knowledge is not included in a pass. If you want the skill rather than the funded account, buy the challenge and treat the attempts as tuition — the numbers are against you financially in the short run and in your favour in the long run.
What you are actually buying
- The rulebook read properly. The most common cause of a failed evaluation is a rule the trader did not read or read once and misremembered. That is a research cost, and it is the cheapest part of this.
- The attempts you would have spent. At the sizes where firms charge most, this is the largest term in the arithmetic by a wide margin.
- The time. A pass runs on the firm's minimum-day schedule rather than on the trader's, which usually means the calendar time is close to what you would spend anyway. On a trailing-drawdown futures evaluation, it is often shorter than a first attempt would have been.
What the comparison does not include
It does not include the value of learning the rulebook yourself, which is real and which a pass skips. It does not include the funded phase, which is governed by rules a pass does not satisfy. And it does not include the possibility that your own pass rate is much higher than the market average, in which case the arithmetic moves decisively in favour of doing it yourself — and this page would rather say that plainly than argue you out of it.
12. Who should not buy this
A service that refuses work is more useful than one that takes everything, so here is the version of this where the answer is no.
- Your firm's terms prohibit third-party trading. The pass will be voided at the payout stage and the money is gone. This is not a marginal risk and it is not something to weigh against a low fee.
- You want a funded account you then trade with the same plan. A pass hands you an account with a funded rulebook you have not practised. The risk profile changes at the moment of handover and the evaluation plan does not transfer.
- The evaluation is not the constraint. If your blocker is that you have no method at all, a passed account is a passed account and then you are trading someone else's money with no framework. The evaluation is a test; it was never the problem.
- You want the skill, not the account. Then the attempts are the tuition and they are worth paying for. Buy the challenge, fail it a few times, and read the rulebook yourself. This page is not for you and that is an honest answer rather than a lost sale.
- The firm is new and revising terms monthly. Retroactive rule changes are a risk nobody can price, and the cheaper the firm, the more often its rulebook moves.
13. Seven checks before you pay any passing service
These apply to every provider in the table above, including us. They take about twenty minutes and they are the difference between buying a result and buying a story.
- Does the provider name the firms they will not work with? A list of refusals is evidence that a terms check happened. A page that says "all firms" without exception has not read anybody's terms.
- Is the price the price? Ask what happens at $200,000 and what happens after a failure. If either answer arrives as "it depends", get the specifics before paying — the retry term is the deciding number in section 5.
- Is a funded payout promised anywhere? It cannot be, because the funded phase is governed by rules the pass does not satisfy. A provider promising a payout has told you they will promise anything.
- What is the deliverable, in one sentence? A completed evaluation handed over documented. If the answer involves a strategy, a channel or a course, that is a different product.
- Where does the money sit if the pass fails? While the evaluation runs, a failure is the provider's cost, not a second fee of yours. Confirm that in writing.
- Will they trade a demo first? A free demo test is the cheapest due diligence available, and a provider who will not show a week of process is asking you to buy one.
- Do they tell you the funded rules before you take the account? The payout schedule and the consistency condition at your firm, stated up front, is the mark of someone who expects you to keep the account rather than just receive it.
Check them in this order, and stop at the first one that fails. A provider who fails check one or check three will pass the rest of the conversation comfortably, because those are the two that cannot be talked around.
14. The evidence behind this page, and how to check it
Two kinds of claim appear above: figures about other companies, and results claimed by the provider. They need different evidence, so they are kept apart here rather than compressed into one trust badge.
Who publishes this record
This site is maintained by ElitePropX, the provider the flat $220 belongs to. That is a conflict of interest, and it is stated next to the comparison rather than buried: the ElitePropX row in the price table is our own price and not an independent figure. Every other row was read from that provider's own pricing page on the date shown, and each row links to the page it came from, so any number here can be re-read at source.
What the provider's own record shows
Passes are documented with firm-issued certificates rather than equity-curve screenshots, because a certificate is produced by the firm's system after the evaluation was verified, while a screenshot is produced by the person claiming the result. The published record at passed prop firm challenges carries three certificates, client names blurred and dates intact:
| Document | Issued by | Date printed on it |
|---|---|---|
| Certificate of achievement | Alpha Capital Group | 09/09/2024 |
| Funded account certificate | Firm-issued after a passed evaluation | 2/08/25 |
| Evaluation completion certificate | BestPropFirm | No date printed |
Beside them sits a per-firm table of documented passes — the account sizes exchanged at each firm and the typical trading days from first trade to verification — with certificates available on request for the rows that are not published. What that record does not show is the funded phase. A passed evaluation and a paid payout are different documents, and no provider can evidence a payout that has not happened yet.
What is deliberately not claimed here. No client count, no "12,000 traders funded" figure, no payout total, no testimonial wall. None of those can be checked by a reader, which is exactly why they are popular on pages selling this. The checkable version is narrower: named firms, dated certificates, a stated price, and a written list of the work we refuse.
How the numbers on this page are kept honest
- Every figure has a source and a read date. The prices in section 5 were read from the five providers' own pricing pages on 2026-10-20, and the firm rules in section 7 from each firm's own documentation on 2026-10-21. Each row links to the page the figures came from.
- Firms without a published figure are named, not guessed. FXIFY, Alpha Capital Group, FundingPips, E8 Markets and FX2 Funding are left out of the rules tables on purpose: each runs several products under one brand, and a figure taken from the wrong plan would be worse than a blank.
- Corrections are dated and stated. When a provider moves a price or a firm revises a rulebook, the row is re-read and the revision appears below. Quietly editing a number is how a comparison page stops being a record.
- The refusal list is testable. The claim in section 6 that prohibited firms are declined can be checked: name a firm whose terms ban third-party trading, and the answer comes back as a refusal instead of a quote.
Record of revisions
- 26 October 2026 — first snapshot published. Prices for five passing services read on 2026-10-20; evaluation rules read for three forex firms and two futures firms on 2026-10-21; 20 questions answered.
Where a figure here disagrees with a provider's own page, the provider's page is right and this one is out of date. Say so and the row is re-read, with the correction logged against the date.
The checks that apply to us
The seven checks in section 13 were written to be used against this page too, and two of them deserve a direct answer. A funded payout is not promised anywhere here, because the funded phase is governed by rules the evaluation does not test. And the free demo exists because the process is the one part a buyer cannot verify by reading: seven days on a broker demo, traded before $220 changes hands.
15. Frequently asked questions about prop firm passing services
What is a prop firm passing service?
It is a paid arrangement where someone other than you completes a prop firm evaluation. You buy the attempt rather than a strategy or signals. The deliverable is a challenge or verification phase that has reached its profit target while staying inside every rule the firm sets — daily loss, maximum loss, drawdown type, minimum trading days and any consistency cap on how much profit one day may contribute. The fee prices the work of passing a rulebook, which is why it does not scale with the account size.
How much does a prop firm passing service cost?
In 2026, published prices at a $100,000 account run from $220 flat to $588 on tiered models, with one provider at roughly $565 in converted pounds and one that quotes per client without publishing anything. What matters more than the headline is the fee model: whether the price rises with account size, and whether a failed attempt costs you another full fee. A provider charging less per attempt but full price on retries is usually the more expensive service once the retry is priced in.
Is a prop firm passing service allowed?
It depends entirely on your firm's terms, and the answer has to come from that firm's own document rather than from a comparison article or from the provider selling you the pass. Wording varies: some firms permit account management explicitly, some are silent and reserve the decision, and some prohibit any person other than the account holder from placing trades. Around one firm in five is a prohibition. Where the terms prohibit it, a pass is not worth the fee, because the account can be closed and the profit withheld at the payout stage.
Will you pass my prop firm challenge for me?
Yes, for firms whose terms permit it, at any account size for a flat $220. The sequence is that your firm and exact plan name are read first, the third-party clause is quoted back to you, and the fee only comes up after that. Where the clause prohibits third-party trading, the work is declined rather than sold — a pass that gets voided when you request a payout costs you the fee, the evaluation and the trading time together.
How long does it take to pass a prop firm challenge through a service?
The minimum trading days rule sets the floor, not the target. A target can be reached in three sessions, but an evaluation requiring ten days cannot be finished in three, so the honest timeline is always at least as long as that rule allows. Most 2-step evaluations with a four to five day minimum land inside one to two weeks of trading, and phases are usually run at different paces because phase two has a smaller target under the same drawdown rules.
Which prop firms do you pass challenges for?
Around twenty firms are handled, covering forex and futures, including FTMO, FundedNext, The5ers, Apex Trader Funding and Topstep. The list is limited by terms rather than by convenience: a firm is only offered where its published rules permit the arrangement. If your firm is not on the list, the terms are still read and you get a yes or no — new firms are commonly added, and the answer is given before payment either way.
What happens if the evaluation fails while you are running it?
The retry is ours. While an evaluation is being run under the flat fee, a breach of a rule before the target is reached is covered, and the next attempt is not a second charge to you. This is the term to get in writing before paying any provider, because it is the number that decides what the service actually costs: a cheaper fee with full-price retries has a higher expected cost than a higher fee with retries included.
Do I keep the funded account after the pass?
The account is returned to you with the evaluation complete and documented, and the firm funds it under its own funded-account terms. You keep the account, the payouts and the decisions from that point. What the pass does not give you is the funded rulebook practised — the funded account has its own drawdown, target and usually a consistency condition before the first withdrawal, and nothing about how the evaluation was passed changes any of it.
Is a passing service the same as copy trading or signals?
No, and the differences are not cosmetic. Signals tell you when to enter and do nothing about the drawdown rule that ends most challenges. Copy trading leaves you holding the account and owning every rule breach, and where a firm prohibits third-party trading, mirroring positions is usually the exact behaviour the clause was written to catch. A passing service takes the attempt on and carries the failure risk while the evaluation runs.
Is it cheaper to pass the challenge myself?
It depends on how many attempts you would take. At a $500 firm fee and a 20% first-attempt pass rate, the expected cost of doing it yourself is five attempts, or about $2,500, plus roughly five months of calendar time. At a 40% rate it is about $1,250 across ten weeks. A flat $220 fee is under half the cost of a single attempt at a $100k size. If your own pass rate is high, the arithmetic moves decisively the other way and doing it yourself is cheaper.
Can you pass a futures evaluation like Apex or Topstep?
Yes, where the firm's terms allow it, and futures evaluations are a different job rather than the same job on different instruments. Their rules are denominated in dollars rather than percentages, which means difficulty changes with the contract you trade: a $2,000 drawdown is 1,000 points at one micro Nasdaq contract and 40 points at one S&P mini. Several futures firms also trail the threshold on open profit, so letting a winner run can end the account even on a day that closes positive.
What do you need from me to start?
Your firm, the exact plan name and the account size. The plan matters as much as the brand, because firms running several products publish rules per plan, and a clause that permits account management on one plan may not appear in another. Nothing is paid at this stage: the clause is read from the firm's own document, the relevant sentence comes back to you, and the fee only becomes relevant once the answer is yes.
Can a funded account be voided after being passed?
Yes, and the point at which it happens is the payout request rather than the evaluation review. Firms usually fund the account regardless, because the evaluation review checks the numbers rather than who was operating the account. The prohibition surfaces later, when the payout review looks at whether the account holder traded it and the pattern does not match. That is the outcome the terms check exists to prevent, and it is why the check comes before the fee.
Does the price change at larger account sizes?
Not here. The fee is flat at any size from $10,000 to $300,000, because the work is the same work: the targets are the same percentages and the rules are the same rules. Several providers in the market charge by size tier, with prices rising at $200,000, and one does not publish a price at all. A flat fee is only meaningful if it is genuinely flat for the size you are actually buying, which is the second question to ask any provider.
What is the best prop firm passing service?
There is no ranked answer in this category worth trusting, including one from us. What can be compared is measurable: whether the provider publishes a price at each account size, whether a failed attempt costs you a second full fee, whether they name the firms they decline to work with, whether a funded payout is promised anywhere, and whether they will trade a demo for you before you pay. A provider that fails any of those is not a candidate whatever its reviews say. Cheap and reliable are separate claims and often point in opposite directions here: the lowest published fee is frequently the one that charges you again after a failure, and reliability is measured by what happens when an evaluation fails, not by how a pass is advertised. Legit is not a label any provider can award itself — it is what the checks below are for. Price is the last item to compare, not the first.
Are prop firm passing service reviews trustworthy?
Treat reviews in this category as advertising by default, because most are — including pages that read as independent comparisons. The sites ranking for this phrase are usually affiliate pages selling the service they appear to be assessing, which is why the recommended provider changes from one review to the next. What you can check independently: the provider's Trustpilot or equivalent profile, its review count and the dates on them, whether its own pages agree about the price, and whether anyone will trade a demo for you first. Our own position is stated in the disclosure at the bottom of this page.
Is a prop firm passing service legal?
Hiring someone to trade your own evaluation account is not unlawful, and the reason this page does not lead with the word legal is that the real constraint is your firm's terms rather than the law. Where a firm prohibits third-party trading, a pass is a breach of its contract and the account can be closed at the payout review. So the accurate version is: lawful to buy, and sometimes fatal to the account you are trying to keep. The terms check is the only thing that separates those two cases.
What is a trailing drawdown, and why does it decide a pass?
A trailing drawdown is a maximum loss limit that climbs as the account climbs, rather than staying fixed below the starting balance. On the strictest version the threshold trails unrealised profit, so a position showing a gain has already raised the floor and a retracement can end the account on a day that closes flat or positive. It is the most common reason a plan that works elsewhere fails: the same target and the same percentages are a different job under a trailing drawdown than under a static one.
Do you offer funded account management as well as passing?
Funded account management is a different service with a different risk profile, because it put someone else's hands on an account that pays you, and more firms prohibit it than prohibit evaluation management. We do not sell it as a standard option, and the same terms check applies: if a funded account's terms prohibit third-party trading, a management arrangement ends the same way a prohibited pass does, at the payout review. What a pass leaves you with is your own account and your own decisions about it.
Can I pay to pass a prop firm challenge, or is that a scam?
Both exist, which is why the phrase needs splitting. Paying a provider to trade your evaluation is a real service with a real deliverable. Paying a firm to defer its own fee is a payment plan, and paying anyone for a guaranteed pass is a contradiction, because the outcome depends on a rulebook the provider does not control and can change mid-evaluation. The test in every case is the same two questions: what do you receive, and what does it cost if it fails?
Flat $220 · Any firm · Any account size
Send your firm and the exact plan name on Telegram. The terms clause is read first, the answer comes back before any payment question, and the seven-day demo test is there if you would rather watch the process before buying it.