What is the difference between Moneta’s two 2-Step challenges?

The loss caps and the price, and nothing else they publish. Both ask 5% then 10%, both want 3 minimum trading days, both pay 88% and both use a static drawdown. The cheaper allows 4% daily inside 8% overall; the dearer, 5% inside 10%.

Is the cheaper Moneta 2-Step worth it?

Not on this model. It saves 31% on the sticker at $100K — $290 — and costs $10,454 per funded account against $4,362, because it ends after 4 consecutive losses instead of 5 and fails 94% against 78%. Assumes each trade is independent. Correlated positions — three majors against the dollar — lose together and count as one.

Why does one absorbed loss matter that much?

Because a losing streak is geometric. Surviving a fourth loss and surviving a fifth are not one step apart in outcome — here they are 16 points, and the expected number of attempts goes from 4.6 to 15.8. A discount is linear; the thing it buys is not.

Which Moneta evaluation is cheapest per funded account?

The dearer 2-Step, at $4,362 at $100K. Moneta's 1-Step computes past 20 expected attempts at 1% risk and is not priced on this site at all.

Moneta Funded · two 2-Steps, one target

The discount buys the more expensive account

Moneta sell two two-phase evaluations asking exactly the same 5% then 10%, over the same minimum days, at the same split, on the same kind of drawdown. What differs is the caps and the price.

The cheaper one saves 31% at $100K and allows 4% a day against 5%. That single point ends the attempt after 4 consecutive losses instead of 5, and costs $10,454 per funded account against $4,362.

What differs

Rule	2-Step Challenge	2-Step Challenge (lower-cost)
Daily loss limit	5%	4%
Overall loss limit	10%	8%
Ends after (1% risk)	5 losses	4 losses
Fails	78%	94%
Profit target	5% + 10%	5% + 10%
Minimum trading days	3	3
Time limit	none	none
Profit split	88%	88%
Drawdown kind	static	static

The greyed rows are identical, and the build fails if any stops being so. The parenthetical in the cheaper one’s name is this site’s, added to tell two similarly named offerings apart — it is not what Moneta call it.

The discount against what it buys

Account	Dearer	Cheaper	Saved	Dearer, per funded account	Cheaper, per funded account
$5K	$45	$33	−27%	$207	$523
$10K	$105	$71	−32%	$482	$1,125
$25K	$245	$169	−31%	$1,125	$2,677
$50K	$526	$365	−31%	$2,415	$5,782
$100K	$950	$660	−31%	$4,362	$10,454

The saving is real and it is a percentage of one fee. The cost is a percentage of one fee multiplied by how many times you expect to pay it, and that multiplier goes from 4.6 to 15.8.

One loss, 16 points

The two products differ by a single absorbed loss at 1% risk: 5 against 4. That does not sound like the difference between 78% and 94%, and it is, because a losing streak compounds. Each further loss you can survive removes a whole branch of the ways an attempt can end.

A discount does not compound. 31% off is 31% off, once, on one fee. So the trade — a linear saving for a geometric loss of resilience — comes out the way it does at every size Moneta sell both at, by about 2.4 times.

Which is what makes this pair worth reading even if you never buy either. It is the same trade almost every firm on this site offers somewhere, with everything else held still.

What this does not measure

· Losses spread across days. The model counts a run of consecutive trades, so it reads the daily limit above all. The two points of overall cap that also differ do more work over a bad fortnight than these figures give them, which widens the gap rather than closing it.
· Two phases against one target. The 5% then 10% is summed, and each phase is its own chance to stop. That is a simplification, and it applies identically to both.
· The payout gate. Fourteen days since the first trade, $500 of available profit and no payout in the previous fortnight, on both. It separates nothing here and is priced nowhere.
· Everything in the assumptions. 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.

Where these rules and prices were read

Moneta Funded — product offerings — read 2026-08-23

Questions

What is the difference between Moneta’s two 2-Step challenges?: The loss caps and the price, and nothing else they publish. Both ask 5% then 10%, both want 3 minimum trading days, both pay 88% and both use a static drawdown. The cheaper allows 4% daily inside 8% overall; the dearer, 5% inside 10%.
Is the cheaper Moneta 2-Step worth it?: Not on this model. It saves 31% on the sticker at $100K — $290 — and costs $10,454 per funded account against $4,362, because it ends after 4 consecutive losses instead of 5 and fails 94% against 78%. Assumes each trade is independent. Correlated positions — three majors against the dollar — lose together and count as one.
Why does one absorbed loss matter that much?: Because a losing streak is geometric. Surviving a fourth loss and surviving a fifth are not one step apart in outcome — here they are 16 points, and the expected number of attempts goes from 4.6 to 15.8. A discount is linear; the thing it buys is not.
Which Moneta evaluation is cheapest per funded account?: The dearer 2-Step, at $4,362 at $100K. Moneta's 1-Step computes past 20 expected attempts at 1% risk and is not priced on this site at all.

Moneta Funded →