Three-phase challenges: the 3 prop firms selling a 3-step
evaluation
Of the 46 programmes with an evaluation to pass whose rules we have read,
3 run three phases —
The5ers' Bootcamp, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three and Goat Funded Trader's 3 Step Model. Every other one is a single phase or two.
They are not a marginally harder two-step. Their mean difficulty ratio is
2.84 against 1.52 for one phase and 1.56 for two, and the mean chance a losing streak ends the attempt at 1%
risk per trade is 92% against 74% and 77%. On this data the third phase is a different tier of difficulty, sold by 3 of the
14 firms whose rules we have read.
One, two and three phases side by side
Format
Programmes
Firms
Mean total target
Mean drawdown
Mean daily
Mean ratio
Mean losses
Mean trades
Mean fails
One phase
22
13
9.5%
6.5%
3.3% 16 of 22 publish one
1.52
4.2
47
74%
Two phases
21
11
16.1%
10.4%
5.0%
1.56
5.0
81
77%
Three phases
3
3
17.3%
6.3%
4.0% 2 of 3 publish one
2.84
4.3
87
92%
Every column is a plain mean across the programmes in that format, computed at 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate
and 2R winners. “Mean losses” is how many consecutive losing trades the average programme in the
format survives; “mean trades” is how many trades its total target needs at that risk;
“mean fails” is the chance of a losing run long enough to end the attempt over that many trades. A
mean over 3 programmes is a thin figure and is quoted as one — the 3 rows behind it are
immediately below, in full.
Ranked by the last column, best first: The5ers' Bootcamp at 84%,
Goat Funded Trader's 3 Step Model at 96%. “Losses” is how many
consecutive full-risk losers the tightest cap that can end the attempt allows at 1% risk.
Each one in full
Every figure below is from the firm’s own rules document, linked underneath with the date it was read.
Published prices: $5,000 for $22 · $25,000 for $95 · $100,000 for $225 — and those sizes are the rungs of a fixed ladder, not an account size you pick.
The fee shown is the entry payment; the rest falls due on passing.
· Fixed ladders, no size selector: the $20K ladder starts at $5,000, the $100K at $25,000, the $250K at $100,000.
· The fee comes in two parts, and the second is the opposite of a refund: $22/$95/$225 to start, then $50/$205/$350 more on passing — $72/$300/$575 all in.
· The funded stage adds a 3% daily pause and a 4% max loss; the evaluation steps publish no daily limit.
· Accounts without activity for more than 30 consecutive days are closed.
Why a third phase costs so much more than it looks
A buyer reads three phases as three smaller targets, and the arithmetic of the targets supports them:
against the 21 two-phase programmes here, these 3 ask only
1.2 percentage points more total profit.
What no pricing page prints beside that comparison is the rope.
The mean total drawdown allowance across these 3 is
6.3% against 10.4% two-phase — 4.0 points
tighter.
That is the whole mechanism: the road lengthens and the verge does not widen.
Nor does the cap that ends the attempt first on 38 of the 46 programmes
here loosen to compensate. The daily loss limit averages 4.0% across the
2 of these 3 that publish one, against 5.0% across
all 21 two-phase programmes —
1.0 points tighter. A firm adding a phase is not adding room anywhere; it is
adding a second place to be stopped by the same limit.
Put through the model, that lands as more trades taken against a shorter tolerable losing run. Clearing the
whole evaluation at 1% risk takes an average of
87 trades against 47 for a single phase and 81 for two, while the average three-phase programme survives
4.3 consecutive losers
— 0.7 fewer than the two-phase mean of
5.0. The chance of hitting a run of a given length rises with the number of trades you take, so a longer
evaluation on the same rope is not a little worse. It is worse the way compounding is worse.
None of this is a claim about intent. Nothing in these firms’ documents says why the format is shaped this
way, and this site does not guess at motives it cannot cite. What is published is the arithmetic above.
Inside these 3, the ratio runs exactly backwards
Hardest first by difficulty ratio: The5ers' Bootcamp, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three and Goat Funded Trader's 3 Step Model. Hardest first by the chance a
losing streak ends the attempt: Goat Funded Trader's 3 Step Model, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three and The5ers' Bootcamp. The two orderings are exact
mirrors. The steepest ratio on this page — The5ers' Bootcamp at
3.60 — carries the best odds of the 3, at
84%.
The reason is a rule the ratio cannot see. The5ers' Bootcamp publishes no daily loss limit in the evaluation at all, so the
overall cap is the only way out, and at 1% risk
it survives 5 consecutive full-risk
losers.
The other 2 survive 4 before a daily
limit ends the attempt.
One fewer loser tolerated is worth more than a percentage point of drawdown, and the ratio prices
neither.
The ratio is a useful first sort across a large field — it is why it sits in every table on this site — and
across 3 programmes it is not a ranking. Both numbers are shown so neither has to be trusted
alone.
Where both are priced, the longer evaluation is usually the cheaper one
Across 11 same-balance comparisons, over 5 starting balances, at Alpha Capital Group — every case where one of these firms prices its three-phase programme and a
shorter evaluation of its own at the same balance in the same currency — the three-phase costs
less in 8, more in 2 and the same in 1. Same firm, same balance, same currency: the one price comparison on this page that is
genuinely like for like, and a sample one firm wide, which is as far as it can be read.
· Alpha Capital Group, $10,000: Alpha Three at $67 against Alpha One 10% (one phase) at $99 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $10,000: Alpha Three at $67 against Alpha Pro 6% (two phases) at $67 — the two are priced identically.
· Alpha Capital Group, $25,000: Alpha Three at $157 against Alpha One 10% (one phase) at $197 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $25,000: Alpha Three at $157 against Alpha Pro 6% (two phases) at $137 — the longer evaluation is the dearer one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $50,000: Alpha Three at $247 against Alpha One 10% (one phase) at $297 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $50,000: Alpha Three at $247 against Alpha Pro 6% (two phases) at $237 — the longer evaluation is the dearer one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $100,000: Alpha Three at $397 against Alpha One 10% (one phase) at $497 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $100,000: Alpha Three at $397 against Alpha Pro 6% (two phases) at $427 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $100,000: Alpha Three at $397 against Alpha Swing (two phases) at $577 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $200,000: Alpha Three at $697 against Alpha One 10% (one phase) at $997 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
· Alpha Capital Group, $200,000: Alpha Three at $697 against Alpha Pro 6% (two phases) at $847 — the longer evaluation is the cheaper one.
5 more comparisons exist and are excluded from that count.
The5ers' Bootcamp splits its fee in two and charges the remainder on passing — the opposite of the refund most of this industry advertises. An entry
fee set against a competitor’s all-in fee is not a comparison, and the remainder is published as
prose rather than as a price this page will do arithmetic on. The firm’s own wording is quoted in
the rules above; the entry-fee rows are listed here without a verdict, because on this page they cannot
earn one.
· The5ers, $5,000: Bootcamp at $22 to enter against Hyper Growth (one phase) at $260 in full — an entry fee and a whole fee, so neither is cheaper than the other on this page.
· The5ers, $5,000: Bootcamp at $22 to enter against Pro Growth (one phase) at $52 in full — an entry fee and a whole fee, so neither is cheaper than the other on this page.
· The5ers, $5,000: Bootcamp at $22 to enter against High Stakes (two phases) at $35 in full — an entry fee and a whole fee, so neither is cheaper than the other on this page.
· The5ers, $25,000: Bootcamp at $95 to enter against High Stakes (two phases) at $176 in full — an entry fee and a whole fee, so neither is cheaper than the other on this page.
· The5ers, $100,000: Bootcamp at $225 to enter against High Stakes (two phases) at $491 in full — an entry fee and a whole fee, so neither is cheaper than the other on this page.
Fees across firms, across three attempts, with refunds netted, are
a page of their own. This
section only compares a firm with itself.
Where the honesty of the headline runs out
The format leads the field on both measures as a group. It does not contain the field’s worst individual
programme, and saying otherwise would be overstating it: 18 of the 43 one- and
two-phase programmes here compute worse than The5ers' Bootcamp, the best of these 3. The finding is
that the format is uniformly hard, not that it holds the single hardest thing on the site.
Where it is close to unique is the ratio. Only 1 of the 43 shorter programmes carries a difficulty ratio above the lowest of these 3, which is 2.25: Lux Trading Firm's 1-Step Evaluation — $1M. At or above 2.25 the whole field holds 4 programmes of any format,
and 3 of them are these.
For 1 of the 3 —
Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three — the firm publishes a daily loss limit without saying what breaching
it does. The figures here take the conservative reading, that the attempt ends, and the table marks the cell
as our reading rather than their rule. It is the question to put to support before paying: on a programme
this long, the difference between a pause and a termination is worth more than the fee.
What this does not measure
· 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.
· It applies every cap at its starting level. That is pessimistic on a static drawdown, because profit you have
banked buys room the model does not credit, and
all 3 of these use one. The group means in the first table mix drawdown types,
so they are not comparable on that axis.
· A mean over 3 programmes moves a long way when one of them changes. The per-programme figures
above are the ones to argue with; the group means are a summary of them, not evidence of their own.
· Nothing here says why three phases are rare. This data is a snapshot of what 14 firms publish today
and holds no history, so it can show that the format is rare and cannot show that it is in retreat.
· Nothing here is about whether a firm pays out. No published rule answers that.
All 3 of these compute worse than the mean of every other format in the table above. What follows is the least bad of the 3 on one measure, not an argument that the format is a
good buy.
On the numbers above
The5ers — Bootcamp
It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, among the three-phase programmes alone, at 84% — 11 percentage points clear of Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three, 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 payout reliability, platform, support, or the fee instalment charged on passing where a firm splits its fee in two.
The5ers (Bootcamp), Alpha Capital Group (Alpha Three) and Goat Funded Trader (3 Step Model) — 3 of the 14 firms whose rules we have read from their own documents, and 3 of the 46 programmes with an evaluation to pass. Every other programme in this data runs one phase or two. That is a count of what these firms sell today, not a measure of what the industry used to sell: this site holds no history, so it can show that three phases are rare and cannot show that they are disappearing.
Is a three step evaluation harder than a one-step or two-step challenge?
On this data, substantially. The 3 three-phase programmes average a difficulty ratio of 2.84 — total profit target divided by total drawdown allowance — against 1.52 across the 22 one-phase programmes and 1.56 across the 21 two-phase ones. On the measure this site ranks by — the chance a losing streak ends the attempt before the target, at 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners — they average 92% against 74% and 77%. The gap is not a rounding difference between neighbouring formats; it is a tier.
Why is a 3 step challenge so much harder than a 2 step?
Because the third phase adds road without adding rope. Against the two-phase field, these 3 ask 1.2 percentage points more total profit against a total drawdown allowance 4.0 points tighter. The daily loss limit — the cap that ends the attempt before the overall drawdown does on 38 of the 46 programmes here — averages 1.0 points tighter than the two-phase mean rather than looser. At 1% risk that works out at an average of 87 trades to clear the whole evaluation against 81, while surviving an average of 4.3 consecutive losers against 5.0. More trades taken against a shorter tolerable losing run is the whole of it, and the probability of a run of a given length rises steeply with the number of trades you take.
Are three-phase challenges cheaper to buy?
Where a firm prices both against the same starting balance, usually yes. Across 11 same-balance comparisons, over 5 starting balances, at Alpha Capital Group — every case where one of these firms publishes a single-payment fee for its three-phase programme and for a shorter evaluation of its own at the same balance and currency — the three-phase costs less in 8, more in 2 and the same in 1. That is one firm’s price list rather than a market pattern: Alpha Capital Group mostly prices its longest evaluation below its own shorter ones at the same balance, and no other firm here prices a three-phase programme and a shorter one of its own at a balance we can set side by side. 5 further comparisons are left out of that count because The5ers' Bootcamp splits its fee in two and charges the remainder on passing — an entry fee and an all-in fee are not the same quantity, and the remainder is published as prose rather than as a price this page can compute with.