Every firm whose rules we have read
Best prop firms 2026, ranked by the number none of them advertises
13 firms, 52 programmes, ordered by the computed chance a losing streak ends the firm’s best challenge before its profit target is reached. At 1% risk per trade that runs from 19% at Fidelcrest to 97% at Hola Prime.
Nobody is paid to be in this order. It is a sort over one number derived from the firms’ own rules documents, every one of them linked with the date it was read, and it changes when they do.
The ranking
| # | Firm | Its best challenge | Ratio | Losses | Programmes | From | Fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fidelcrest | Micro Trader — Aggressive 15% → 15% against 20% , 10% daily | 1.50 | 10 | 4 | €49 | 19% |
| 2 | The5ers | Hyper Growth 10% against 6% , 3% daily | 1.67 | 6 | 4 | $19 | 43% |
| 3 | Lux Trading Firm | 1-Step Evaluation — $100K 10% against 6% | 1.67 | 6 | 4 | £199 | 43% |
| 4 | City Traders Imperium | 1-Step Challenge 8% against 5% | 1.60 | 5 | 4 | $29 | 54% |
| 5 | Alpha Capital Group | Alpha One 12% 12% against 8% , 5% daily | 1.50 | 5 | 8 | $40 | 70% our reading |
| 6 | FundedNext | Stellar 2-Step 8% → 5% against 10% , 5% daily | 1.30 | 5 | 4 | $24.74 | 73% |
| 7 | Funding Pips | 2 Step Standard 8% → 5% against 10% , 5% daily | 1.30 | 5 | 5 | $29 | 73% |
| 8 | FTMO | 2-Step 10% → 5% against 10% , 5% daily | 1.50 | 5 | 2 | €79 | 78% |
| 9 | Goat Funded Trader | 2-Step Standard 10% → 5% against 10% , 5% daily | 1.50 | 5 | 6 | — | 78% |
| 10 | Audacity Capital | Ability Challenge 10% → 5% against 10% , 5% daily | 1.50 | 5 | 3 | — | 78% |
| 11 | Funded Trading Plus | 1-Step Express 10% against 6% , 4% daily | 1.67 | 4 | 3 | — | 84% |
| 12 | E8 Markets | E8 One 6% against 4% , 3% daily | 1.50 | 3 | 2 | $32 | 86% |
| 13 | Hola Prime | 1-Step Prime 10% against 6% , 3% daily | 1.67 | 3 | 1 | $59 | 97% our reading |
At 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners. “Losses” is how many in a row end the attempt; “fails” is the chance of a run that long over the trades the target needs. “From” is the cheapest fee the firm publishes across all its programmes, in the currency it charges, on the day it was read — it is not a like-for-like price and the cost page is where fees are actually compared. Each firm links to its own page, where every figure carries its source and read date.
What separates the top from the bottom
Not the profit target, and not the drawdown. Fidelcrest’s best programme survives 10 consecutive losing trades at 1% risk; Hola Prime’s survives 3 — 7 fewer. Because the probability of a losing run falls away exponentially in its length, that gap is worth more than any difference in the percentages on the pricing pages.
What sets it is the tightest cap that can actually end the attempt, which is usually the daily loss limit rather than the overall drawdown — and, decisively, what breaching that limit does. A firm that pauses the account until the next session has made its daily limit survivable; a firm that closes the account has not. Two firms can publish identical targets, identical drawdowns and identical daily limits and sit at opposite ends of this table on that one sentence, which is exactly what FundedNext and The5ers do.
This is also why the firm’s best programme is ranked rather than its average. Most of these sell between two and six, spread across one-step, two-step and instant products whose odds differ by tens of points. Averaging them would describe a product nobody can buy.
2 of these rest on a rule the firm has not published
Alpha Capital Group's Alpha One 12% and Hola Prime's 1-Step Prime publish a daily loss limit without saying whether breaching it ends the attempt or pauses the account until the next session. The figures above take the conservative reading — that the attempt ends — so these firms are ranked lower than they might deserve, and the cell is marked as our reading rather than their rule.
It is the question to put to their support before paying. The answer moves the outcome further than any discount they are offering.
2 firms are here and not in the table
Every one with the reason. A ranking that quietly drops what it cannot handle looks more complete than it is.
- Topstep — Topstep is futures-only, and publishes its drawdown as a dollar trailing figure per account size — $2,000 behind the high-water mark on a $50,000 account is a different fraction at every equity level. A percentage model cannot express that honestly, so this page records no figures rather than wrong ones.
- HyroTrader — Its drawdown trails within the trading day, which this model measures optimistically. A figure we know to be flattering is not a ranking position. Its rules are here.
What this ranking does not measure
- · Whether the firm pays. This is the thing most people mean by “best”, and no published rule can answer it. Nothing on this page should be read as saying a firm will honour a payout.
- · Assumes each trade is independent. Correlated positions — three majors against the dollar — lose together and count as one.
- · Assumes every trade risks the same amount. Raising size after a loss shortens the streak you can survive.
- · Uses your stated win rate. If that came from a demo account or a good month, the figure below is optimistic.
- · It applies each cap at its starting level. That is pessimistic on a static drawdown, close to right on one that trails at the end of the day, and optimistic on one that trails intraday — which is why programmes of that kind cannot take a ranking position here.
- · It ranks each firm on its best programme. The others may be far worse, and the per-programme rankings are where to see them.
- · Fees are shown but not ranked. Across three attempts, with refunds netted, the cheap ones reorder — that is a page of its own.
On the numbers above
Fidelcrest — Micro Trader — Aggressive
It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, at 19% — 6 percentage points clear of Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive, the next best.
This is computed from the published rules, not chosen. Whichever programme wins that calculation appears here, including firms we earn nothing from, and it changes when the rules do. It says nothing about payout reliability, platform, support, or the fee.
Where every figure came from
One line per firm: the document, and the date it was read. Prop firm rules change on the order of months, so a figure without a date is a figure without a claim.
Fidelcrest — programs — read 2026-08-06
The5ers — challenge programmes explained — read 2026-08-05
Lux Trading Firm — trading rules — read 2026-08-06
City Traders Imperium — 2-Step Challenge — read 2026-08-06
Alpha Capital — rules explained — read 2026-08-05
FundedNext — CFD trading objectives — read 2026-08-05
FundingPips Help Centre — account models — read 2026-08-05
FTMO — programme comparison and pricing — read 2026-08-05
Goat Funded Trader — models — read 2026-08-06
Audacity Capital — trading guidelines — read 2026-08-06
Funded Trading Plus — hard rules and account breaches — read 2026-08-06
E8 Markets Help Center — product overview — read 2026-08-05
Hola Prime — forex trading rules — read 2026-08-05
Questions
- What is the best prop firm in 2026?
- On the one thing published rules can be made to answer — the chance a losing streak ends the attempt before the target is reached — Fidelcrest's Micro Trader — Aggressive, at roughly 19% at 1% risk per trade. The firm at the other end of this ranking, Hola Prime, computes at 97% on its own best programme. That is a narrow claim on purpose: it says nothing about whether either firm pays out, which no published rule can tell you.
- Why are there no pass rates in this ranking?
- Because nobody publishes them. The figures that circulate come from firms selling challenges or from affiliates selling clicks to those firms. The one exception found in this data is E8 Markets, which prints a 17.7% pass rate for 2023–24 in its own footer disclosure — still a party selling challenges. What is published is rules, so this ranks the rules: how many consecutive losing trades each programme survives at a given risk, and how likely a run that long is over the trades its target needs.
- Why is this not a top ten?
- Because ten is a number of rows, not a finding, and choosing it first means choosing who fills it. 14 firms here have had their rules read from their own documents, so 13 appear in the ranking and the rest are listed underneath with the reason they cannot be placed. When the 15th is read the table grows. A list that stays exactly ten however many firms exist is being edited, and the editing is where the money usually enters.
- Does a commercial arrangement affect this order?
- It cannot. The order is a sort over one computed number, derived from figures in the firms’ own rules documents, and the code that produces it has no field a commercial relationship could set. Firms we earn nothing from appear above firms we might. The affiliate links at the bottom of this page are disclosed and do not touch the ranking.
- What does this ranking not measure?
- Payouts, above all — whether a firm pays what it owes, on time, is the question most people mean by "best", and it is not in any published rule. Also platform quality, spreads and execution, support, and the fee, which ranks differently and has its own page. This measures the one thing a published rulebook can be held to.