Evaluation

Context & Mechanics

Purpose and process

The evaluation is the filter in every prop firm's business model: instead of reviewing CVs, the provider sells a standardised test. The trader pays a fee (often €100–700, scaling with account size) and trades a virtual account on which a profit target must be reached – without breaching the defined loss limits. Common formats are the two-step challenge with two phases (typically 8% and 5% targets), the one-step challenge with one phase and stricter rules, and instant funding, which skips the evaluation entirely in exchange for tighter limits and a lower profit split.

The rules in detail

Hard limits apply in all formats: a daily loss limit of typically 4–5% and an overall loss limit of typically 8–10%, sometimes as a trailing variant. Added to this are minimum trading days, consistency rules or news-trading restrictions. The provider's definition details are decisive: does equity including open positions count, or only balance? Is measurement intraday or end of day? Anyone who cannot answer these questions does not know their actual limits.

The economics of evaluations

Historically only a minority of participants passes – fees from failed attempts are a core revenue source for many providers. Failed attempts require a new fee or a paid reset; some providers refund the fee with the first payout. Evaluations almost always run on simulated accounts, not on live markets.

Why it matters for traders

The most common mistake is choosing an evaluation by price instead of by rulebook – and starting it before one's strategy demonstrably fits the limits. Comparing drawdown statistics with the rulebook in advance and training under realistic conditions significantly reduces paid failed attempts. The GlanWick simulator replicates evaluation conditions with profit targets and loss limits risk-free – GlanWick is a training and simulation tool and not a prop firm itself.

Execution Example

A trader compares two evaluations on a nominal $100,000 account: a two-step challenge (€500 fee, targets 8% and 5%, static 10% overall loss limit) and a one-step challenge (€600 fee, 10% target, 6% trailing drawdown).

Two-step: a cumulative $13,000 profit target over two phases, but a fixed cushion of $10,000 below starting capital – more testing time, milder limits.
One-step: a $10,000 target in one phase, but the loss limit follows every equity high at a distance of $6,000 – interim profits do not enlarge the cushion.
Cost view: two failed attempts already cost €1,000–1,200 – historically only a minority passes on the first try; the fee is a recurring cost item.
Decision: based on their own drawdown statistics (max. 7% in backtests), the trader chooses the model with the static limit – not based on price.

Execution Risk & Errors

Choosing an evaluation by price instead of by rulebook

Confusing the provider's balance- and equity-based loss limits

Budgeting fees as one-off instead of recurring costs

Increasing position size just before the profit target and breaching the limits

Reading minimum trading days and additional rules only after starting

Frequently Asked

How much does an evaluation cost?

Depending on account size and provider, usually between €100 and €700 per attempt. Every failed attempt requires a new fee or a paid reset – the costs are recurring, not one-off.

What is the difference between two-step, one-step and instant funding?

The two-step challenge tests in two phases with historically milder limits. The one-step challenge has only one phase but often a stricter trailing drawdown. Instant funding skips the evaluation in exchange for tighter limits and a lower profit split.

Why do most participants fail?

Historically by breaching the loss limits, not by missing the profit target – often through oversized positions close to the target or after a losing streak.

Can I practice an evaluation in advance?

Yes. The GlanWick simulator replicates profit targets, daily loss limit and drawdown variants of an evaluation risk-free before money is spent on an attempt.