The argument, run backwards
Half the drawdown, and 24 points easier
City Traders Imperium’s 1-Step allows a 5% drawdown where its 2-Step allows 10%, and the 1-Step’s trails your highest closed balance while the 2-Step’s stays put. On both fields a comparison table shows, it is the harsher product.
It is also the one likelier to be passed — 54% against 78% — because it publishes no daily loss limit at all. One cap to trip over instead of two.
Every published field
| 1-Step | 2-Step | |
|---|---|---|
| Phases | 1 | 2 |
| Total profit target | 8% | 15% |
| Maximum daily loss | None published | 5% |
| What breaching it does | No limit to breach | The firm publishes both answers |
| Maximum overall loss | 5% | 10% |
| Drawdown type | Trailing, closed balance | Static |
| Difficulty ratio | 1.60 | 1.50 |
| Losses that end the attempt | 5 | 5 |
| Profitable days required | 3 | 3 per phase, 6 in total |
| Fee at $2.5K | $29 | $39 |
City Traders Imperium — 2-Step Challenge — read 2026-08-06
Why one cap beats a bigger one
A challenge ends when a run of losses fills a cap. Two caps means two chances to be filled, and the tighter one decides — on the 2-Step that is the 5% daily limit, which at 1% risk is 5 consecutive losses. Its 10% drawdown is twice the size of the 1-Step’s and never gets used, because you are out before you approach it.
The 1-Step has one cap, so its 5% is the number that matters and it allows 5 losses. Same count as the 2-Step’s daily limit — and then the 1-Step asks 8% of profit rather than 15%, so it needs fewer trades to get there and gives the streak fewer chances to arrive.
This is the same finding as every other comparison here, arrived at from the opposite direction. Elsewhere the daily limit is what one programme has and another does not, and the one without it wins. Here the one without it wins while carrying half the drawdown, which is as clearly as the point can be made.
The 2-Step figure is our reading, not their rule
CTI publish two answers to what breaching the 2-Step’s daily limit does, in one article. A worked example reads “Result: Daily limit breached, challenge terminated”. The FAQ below it reads “Once you reach the 5% daily loss threshold, you cannot open new positions for the remainder of that trading day”. Their terms list reaching the cap among grounds for termination.
Those are a failure and a pause, and between them lies the difference between 5 losses and 10. The figure above takes the stricter one, so the 2-Step can only be better than shown — and the question is worth putting to their support before paying.
At smaller risk per trade
| Risk per trade | 1-Step | 2-Step |
|---|---|---|
| 1% | 54% 5 losses | 78% 5 losses |
| 0.5% | 10% 10 losses | 19% 10 losses |
| 0.25% | <1% 20 losses | <1% 20 losses |
What this does not measure
- · The 2-Step’s daily-limit effect, as above. It is the largest uncertainty here and it works in the 2-Step’s favour.
- · Both require profitable trading days — three on the 1-Step, three in each phase on the 2-Step. A losing week cannot satisfy that by trading, and these figures count losing runs rather than days.
- · The 1-Step is the only CTI programme permitting third-party expert advisors and Martingale; the others allow personal EAs only.
- · 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.
- · Whether CTI pay. No published rule answers that.
On the numbers above
City Traders Imperium — 1-Step Challenge
It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, at 54% — 24 percentage points clear of City Traders Imperium's 2-Step Challenge, 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 the fee, the profitable-day requirement, or whether the firm pays.
Questions
- What is the difference between the CTI 1-Step and 2-Step Challenge?
- The 1-Step asks 8% profit in one phase against a 5% drawdown that trails your highest closed balance, and publishes no daily loss limit. The 2-Step asks 10% then 5% against a static 10%, with a 5% daily cap on top. Both need three profitable trading days — the 2-Step needs three in each phase.
- Which is easier to pass?
- The 1-Step, by 24 points, which is the opposite of what its published numbers suggest. Its drawdown is half the size and it trails, so on both of the fields a comparison table shows it is the harsher product. It wins because it has one cap and the 2-Step has two: at 1% risk per trade the 2-Step's 5% daily limit ends the attempt after 5 consecutive losses, and its 10% drawdown never comes into play.
- Does the 1-Step really have no daily loss limit?
- CTI publish none for it. Their comparison of their own four programmes shows a daily drawdown for the 2-Step and "None" for the 1-Step, and their 1-Step page repeats it: "No daily drawdown". That is unusual — most single-phase challenges pair a low target with a tight daily cap — and it is the whole reason this pair computes the way it does.
- Why is the 2-Step marked as an assumption?
- Because CTI publish two different answers to what breaching its daily limit does, in one article. A worked scenario reads "Result: Daily limit breached, challenge terminated"; the FAQ below it reads "Once you reach the 5% daily loss threshold, you cannot open new positions for the remainder of that trading day". Those are a failure and a pause, and they are the difference between five losses and ten. The figure above takes the stricter reading, so the 2-Step can only be better than shown.
- What does the trailing drawdown cost on the 1-Step?
- Room after a win rather than room to lose. The floor follows your highest closed balance, so 5% is the most that can ever be given back from the peak however far the account has run — banking profit raises the floor by the same amount. That matters once you are ahead; it does not change how many losses you can absorb from the start, which is what these figures count.