Which FundedNext Stellar challenge is easiest to pass?

Stellar 2-Step, at roughly 73% at 1% risk per trade against 97% for Stellar 1-Step — and it is the one asking the MOST profit, 13% against 10%. Its daily loss cap is 5% rather than 3%, which lets 5 consecutive losses through instead of 3.

Is Stellar 1-Step easier because it has one phase?

No — it is the hardest of the three. One phase means a lower total profit target, 10% against 13%, and that is real. FundedNext pair it with the tightest daily cap they sell, 3%, and at 1% risk that ends the attempt after 3 consecutive losses. The target does not end your attempt; the cap does.

What is Stellar Lite?

The cheapest of the three and the middle rung on every rule: 12% total profit, a 4% daily cap and a 8% overall drawdown, computing at 89%. It sits exactly where its caps put it, between the other two, which is the whole point of this page — the price and the phase count tell you nothing, and the daily cap tells you everything.

Do all three refund the fee on passing?

None of them refund it on passing, and they differ on when they do. Stellar 2-Step returns the fee with the first reward; 1-Step and Lite return it with the third. That is several payouts later and only if you are still trading their capital by then, which is a materially different promise from the one the word "refund" suggests on a pricing page.

What about Stellar Instant?

It is not on this ladder because it has no evaluation to fail — no profit target and no phase, so the measure this page uses has nothing to bite on. It carries a 6% trailing drawdown and no daily limit. Products of that kind sit outside every ranking on this site, and there is a page for them.

Three programmes, one ladder, running backwards

The Stellar asking the least profit is the hardest to pass

FundedNext sell three Stellar evaluations. Order them by daily loss cap — 3%, 4%, 5% — and the odds follow exactly: 97%, 89%, 73%. Order them by profit target and you get 10%, 12%, 13%, which is the same order pointing the other way.

So Stellar 1-Step asks 3 percentage points less profit than Stellar 2-Step and is 24 points likelier to end in a losing streak. A reader comparing the two numbers on the pricing page picks in reverse.

The three rungs

Programme	Phases	Total target	Daily cap	Overall	Losses	$25K	Fails
Stellar 1-Step	1	10%	3%	6%	3	$164.99	97%
Stellar Lite	2	12%	4%	8%	4	$104.99	89%
Stellar 2-Step	2	13%	5%	10%	5	$149.99	73%

At 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners. Read the daily-cap column and the fails column together: they are the same ordering. Read the target column against either and it is the reverse.

FundedNext — CFD trading objectives — read 2026-08-05

Why three rungs matter more than two

One pair pointing the wrong way is a quirk of one comparison. Three in a row, monotonic in both columns, is a pricing structure: FundedNext raise the profit target and the loss caps together, and the caps move further. Every rung you climb asks more profit and gives you a longer losing run to survive it with — one extra loss per rung here, from 3 to 5.

Because the chance of a losing run reaching a given length falls away exponentially rather than linearly, one extra loss is worth more than the extra profit costs. That is the whole inversion, and it is not specific to this firm — FTMO's 1-Step against its own 2-Step is the two-rung version.

What is specific to this firm is that the ladder is complete and priced. The cheapest of the three is the middle rung on every rule, so price tells you nothing about difficulty here either — it tracks account size and nothing else.

What this does not measure

· When the fee comes back. None of the three refunds on passing. Stellar 2-Step returns it with the first reward; the other two with the third, which is several payouts later and only if you are still there.
· Minimum trading days differ: Stellar 1-Step 2, Stellar Lite 5, Stellar 2-Step 5.
· 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 FundedNext pay. No published rule answers that.

On the numbers above

FundedNext — Stellar 2-Step

It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, at 73% — 16 percentage points clear of FundedNext's Stellar Lite, 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 refund schedule, or whether the firm pays.

Open FundedNext → Read its rules here first

Questions

Which FundedNext Stellar challenge is easiest to pass?: Stellar 2-Step, at roughly 73% at 1% risk per trade against 97% for Stellar 1-Step — and it is the one asking the MOST profit, 13% against 10%. Its daily loss cap is 5% rather than 3%, which lets 5 consecutive losses through instead of 3.
Is Stellar 1-Step easier because it has one phase?: No — it is the hardest of the three. One phase means a lower total profit target, 10% against 13%, and that is real. FundedNext pair it with the tightest daily cap they sell, 3%, and at 1% risk that ends the attempt after 3 consecutive losses. The target does not end your attempt; the cap does.
What is Stellar Lite?: The cheapest of the three and the middle rung on every rule: 12% total profit, a 4% daily cap and a 8% overall drawdown, computing at 89%. It sits exactly where its caps put it, between the other two, which is the whole point of this page — the price and the phase count tell you nothing, and the daily cap tells you everything.
Do all three refund the fee on passing?: None of them refund it on passing, and they differ on when they do. Stellar 2-Step returns the fee with the first reward; 1-Step and Lite return it with the third. That is several payouts later and only if you are still trading their capital by then, which is a materially different promise from the one the word "refund" suggests on a pricing page.
What about Stellar Instant?: It is not on this ladder because it has no evaluation to fail — no profit target and no phase, so the measure this page uses has nothing to bite on. It carries a 6% trailing drawdown and no daily limit. Products of that kind sit outside every ranking on this site, and there is a page for them.

FundedNext →