One drawdown, four prices, four difficulties
At Lux, the bigger account is the harder test
Every Lux evaluation carries the same 6% drawdown. What changes with the price is what you must make: 10%, 12%, 15%. So the £999 account asks 5 points more profit than the £199 one against exactly the same rope, and fails 58% of the time against 43%.
Nothing on the pricing page says that. Everywhere else on this site a larger account is the same evaluation with larger numbers, because the target and the caps scale together and the odds do not move.
The ladder
| Programme | Capital | Target | Drawdown | Daily | Ratio | Fee | Fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Step Evaluation — $100K | $100K | 10% | 6% | None | 1.67 | £199 | 43% |
| 1-Step Evaluation — $400K | $400K | 12% | 6% | None | 2.00 | £449 | 49% |
| 1-Step Evaluation — $1M | $1M | 15% | 6% | None | 2.50 | £999 | 58% |
| INSTA | $400K | 12% | 6% | None | 2.00 | £699 | 49% |
At 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners. The drawdown column is the same figure on every row; the target column is not. Each size is sold as one account rather than as a ladder of tiers, so the fee shown is the fee for that programme.
Lux Trading Firm — trading rules — read 2026-08-06
Why they still rank near the top
A 6% drawdown is tight — tighter than most of the field. These are nonetheless among the better odds on this site, and the reason is a rule Lux do not have: no daily loss limit on any programme.
On a typical challenge the daily cap is what ends the attempt and the overall drawdown never comes into play, so three or four consecutive losses finish you. With one cap instead of two, the 6% is the only way out, and at 1% risk that is 6 losses in a row. Because the probability of a losing run falls away exponentially in its length, those extra losses buy more than the tight drawdown costs.
It is the same finding as City Traders Imperium's 1-Step against its 2-Step, where the programme with half the drawdown and no daily limit beats its larger sibling. Here it holds across a whole firm.
Three rules the odds above do not count
- · Risk per trade is capped by the rules, at 5% of remaining risk capital — balance minus the drawdown floor, not the balance. Early on that is 5% of 6%, which is far below the 1% these figures assume, and it changes the arithmetic in your favour by forcing smaller losses.
- · A stop loss must be placed before entering. Trading without one is a breach that can fail the evaluation on its own, whatever the account is worth.
- · No single position may realise more than 5% of the profit target, with correlated positions in the same direction counted as one. On the £199 account that is $500 of the $10,000 needed, so the target cannot be reached in a handful of trades.
What this does not measure
- · The three rules above, all of which push the real figures away from the modelled ones.
- · 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.
- · The fee comes back in full on passing the evaluations, after a risk-desk review — but not on INSTA, where it is not refunded either way.
- · Whether Lux pay. No published rule answers that.
On the numbers above
Lux Trading Firm — 1-Step Evaluation — $100K
It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, at 43% — 7 percentage points clear of Lux Trading Firm's 1-Step Evaluation — $400K, 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 capped risk per trade, the mandatory stop loss, or whether the firm pays.
Questions
- Is a bigger Lux account harder to pass?
- Yes, and by more than the price suggests. Every size carries the same 6% drawdown, so the only thing that changes is what you must make: $100K asks 10%, $400K asks 12%, $1M asks 15%. At 1% risk per trade that runs from 43% on the smallest to 58% on the largest — 15 points for buying more capital from the same firm.
- Why do Lux challenges rank so well here?
- Because none of them publishes a daily loss limit. On most challenges the daily cap is the constraint that ends the attempt and the overall drawdown never comes into play; with no daily cap, the 6% is the only way out, and at 1% risk that is 6 consecutive losses rather than the three or four typical elsewhere. The chance of a losing run reaching a given length falls away exponentially, so those extra losses are worth more than the tighter drawdown costs.
- What is the hardest Lux evaluation?
- 1-Step Evaluation — $1M, at a difficulty ratio of 2.50 — total profit target divided by total drawdown allowance, and the steepest figure recorded anywhere on this site. It is the same firm's own easiest programme scaled up: identical rules, identical 6% drawdown, a target 5 points higher.
- What is Lux INSTA?
- Not instant funding in the usual sense, despite the name. The account is a demo with a 12% profit target to reach, and what passing buys is a one-off payment of 80% of that target rather than a funded account to keep trading. The fee is not refunded on passing or on failing, which is the opposite of the evaluation ladder, where it comes back in full after a risk-desk review.
- What rules do the odds above not capture?
- Three that matter and are unusual. Risk per trade is capped by the rules at 5% of remaining risk capital — balance minus the drawdown floor — not of the balance, so early on that is 5% of 6%. A stop loss must be placed before entering, and trading without one is a breach that can fail the evaluation. And no single position may realise more than 5% of the profit target, with correlated positions counted as one.