Four kinds, across 90 evaluations
The drawdown type is the one rule on the page that nothing here can price
Every failure figure on this site applies a cap at its starting level. That is pessimistic on a static drawdown, about right on one that trails a banked balance, and optimistic on one that trails inside the session. So the arithmetic that orders every other page here is blind to exactly the distinction two firms sell as a product.
And those two firms disagree about what it is worth. FXIFY publish the same evaluation in both kinds at the same price. For Traders charge $98 more — 28% — for the static one, and ask a further point of profit for it.
The four kinds, and how this model treats each
Static
64 programmes · 25 firms · 98 points apartThe floor is set once, from the starting balance, and never moves. Profit you bank is yours to lose again.
In the figures on this site: measured pessimistically — banked profit buys room this model does not credit.
Trailing the closed balance
17 programmes · 8 firms · 78 points apartThe floor rises when a profit is BANKED, not at end of day and not with an open position. E8 call theirs Dynamic Drawdown.
In the figures on this site: measured about right.
Trailing at end of day
5 programmes · 3 firms · 32 points apartThe floor rises to wherever the balance closed the day. Intraday gains do not count until the session ends.
In the figures on this site: measured about right.
Trailing inside the session
4 programmes · 2 firms · 90 points apartThe floor follows the equity HIGH within the day, including unrealised profit. A win followed by losses can breach it while the day is still level.
In the figures on this site: measured OPTIMISTICALLY — the real allowance is smaller than the figure.
Counts are evaluations with a profit target; instant products are excluded because there is nothing to fail. “Points apart” is the span within that kind, which is wide in every one of them — the drawdown type does not sort programmes by difficulty, and this page does not claim it does.
Two firms ran the experiment for us
Most firms sell one kind and you cannot separate the rule from everything else about the product. These two publish the same evaluation twice, changing the drawdown and almost nothing else.
| Firm | Programme | Drawdown | Overall | Daily | Target | $100K | Fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FXIFY | Two Phase — Standard (Trailing) | trailing-close | 10% | 4% | 15% | $549 | 94% |
| Two Phase — Classic (Static) | static | 10% | 4% | 15% | $549 | 94% | |
| For Traders | Fast (Forex) | trailing-close | 6% | 3% | 9% | $351 | 95% |
| Fast Static (Forex) | static | 6% | 3% | 10% | $449 | 97% |
FXIFY's pair is the cleaner experiment: same drawdown, same daily limit, same target, same price, and this model computes both at 94% because the one thing that differs is the thing it cannot see. For Traders' pair changes the target by a point as well, which is why the static one computes marginally worse at 97% against 95% — while costing 28% more.
What a static drawdown is actually worth
In the direction that matters, a static floor helps exactly when a trailing one hurts: after you are in profit. Bank 4% on a 6% static drawdown and you now have 10% of room measured from where you are. Bank the same 4% on a trailing one and you have 6% still, because the floor came with you.
This site’s model gives none of that back. It counts consecutive full-risk losses from the start of the attempt, so it never has profit in hand to protect — which is why a static drawdown is described above as measured pessimistically rather than measured wrongly. The figure is a floor on the answer, not the answer.
Whether $98 is a fair price for that depends on how far into profit you expect to be before things go against you, and no published rule answers it. FXIFY evidently price it at nothing. For Traders price it at 28%. Both are looking at the same rule.
6 programmes are barred from winning anything here
A drawdown that trails inside the session can be breached by a trade that ends flat: the floor follows the equity high including unrealised profit, so going up and coming back is a real loss of room. This model does not see that — it applies the cap at its starting level, which understates the difficulty.
So those programmes appear in every table with their figures and this caveat, and are excluded from winning a recommendation on any page. The rule is not editorial: the moment one of them entered the data it became the best figure on the site, produced by the one drawdown kind the arithmetic understates.
- · Goat Funded Trader — GOAT Blitz, 5% trailing-intraday, computes at 60%
- · Goat Funded Trader — Pay Later Model, 8% trailing-intraday, computes at 5%
- · HyroTrader — One-Step Challenge, 6% static, computes at 84%
- · HyroTrader — Two-Step Challenge, 10% static, computes at 78%
- · Maven Trading — Standard 1-Step, 5% trailing-intraday, computes at 93%
- · Maven Trading — Prediction Markets One-Step Essential, 3% trailing-intraday, computes at 95%
What this does not measure
- · The value of the difference. That is the whole point of the page: no figure here prices it, and the two firms that sell both kinds disagree by 28 percentage points of the fee.
- · Where the trail stops. Several firms lock the floor once the account is a set amount up — Blue Guardian at 8% — after which a trailing drawdown behaves like a static one. That is a rule per firm and not a property of the kind.
- · The daily limit, which usually decides first. On most programmes here the daily cap ends the attempt long before the overall drawdown of any kind matters.
- · 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 any of these firms pay. No published rule answers that.
Where these rules were read
FXIFY — assessment account rules — read 2026-08-23
For Traders — our rules — read 2026-08-23
Questions
- What is the difference between a static and a trailing drawdown?
- A static drawdown fixes the floor at the start and leaves it there, so profit you make is profit you may lose again without breaching. A trailing drawdown moves the floor up behind you, which protects the firm rather than you — the further into profit you go, the less room you have below the current balance. The important question is what it trails: the closed balance, the end-of-day balance, or the equity high inside the session, and those are three different products.
- Which is better for a trader?
- Nothing on this site can tell you, and that is the honest answer. Every figure here applies a cap at its starting level, which is pessimistic on a static drawdown and optimistic on one that trails inside the session — so the arithmetic that orders every other page is blind to exactly this distinction. What can be said is that the firms do not agree either: FXIFY sell the same evaluation in both kinds at the same price, and For Traders charge $98 more for the static one.
- Why is a drawdown that trails inside the day worse?
- Because it can be breached by a trade that finishes flat. The floor follows the highest equity the account reaches during the session, unrealised profit included, so a position that goes 2% up and comes back to level has moved the floor up and then fallen towards it. 6 evaluations here work that way, and none of them can win a recommendation anywhere on this site — the model measures them optimistically, and recommending the programme we compute least accurately because we compute it least accurately is the failure this site exists to avoid.
- Does the drawdown type change the failure figures on this site?
- Not by itself, and that is a limitation rather than a finding. FXIFY's two-phase pair publishes the same 10% drawdown, the same 4% daily limit and the same 15% target in both kinds, so both compute to 94% — identical figures for two products whose whole difference is the rule the figure cannot see.