Skip to content
TradeWin
Menu

5 of 90 programmes

Three-phase challenges: the 5 prop firms selling a 3-step evaluation

Of the 90 programmes with an evaluation to pass whose rules we have read, 5 run three phases — FXIFY's Three Phase, The5ers' Bootcamp, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Three, Goat Funded Trader's 3 Step Model and Maven Trading's Standard 3-Step. Every other one is a single phase or two.

They are not a marginally harder two-step. Their mean difficulty ratio is 2.90 against 1.53 for one phase and 1.55 for two, and the mean chance a losing streak ends the attempt at 1% risk per trade is 91% against 78% and 82%. On this data the third phase is a different tier of difficulty, sold by 5 of the 26 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 45 23 8.9% 6.3% 3.3% 35 of 45 publish one 1.53 3.9 45 78%
Two phases 40 22 15.0% 9.7% 4.7% 1.55 4.7 75 82%
Three phases 5 5 15.2% 5.4% 3.8% 4 of 5 publish one 2.90 4.0 76 91%

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 5 programmes is a thin figure and is quoted as one — the 5 rows behind it are immediately below, in full.

The 5, ranked

Programme Phases Total Daily Breaching it Overall Ratio Losses Fails
FXIFY Three Phase 5% → 5% → 5% 15% 5% Ends the attempt 5% static, from the starting balance 3.00 5 78%
The5ers Bootcamp 6% → 6% → 6% 18% None No daily limit published 5% static, from the starting balance 3.60 5 84%
Alpha Capital Group Alpha Three 8% → 4% → 4% 16% 4% Not published 6% static, from the starting balance 2.67 4 95% our reading
Goat Funded Trader 3 Step Model 6% → 6% → 6% 18% 4% Ends the attempt 8% static, from the starting balance 2.25 4 96%
Maven Trading Standard 3-Step 3% → 3% → 3% 9% 2% Ends the attempt 3% static, from the starting balance 3.00 2 >99%

Ranked by the last column, best first: FXIFY's Three Phase at 78%, Maven Trading's Standard 3-Step at >99%. “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.

FXIFY — Three Phase

Ratio 3.00 · 78% chance a streak ends it

  1. Phase 1 — Phase 1 5% to make
  2. Phase 2 — Phase 2 5% to make
  3. Phase 3 — Phase 3 5% to make
Total profit target
15%
Maximum overall loss
5% — static, from the starting balance
Daily loss limit
5% — ends the attempt
Consecutive losers it survives
5 at 1% risk
Minimum trading days
15
Time limit
None published
Published maximum split
No maximum published
Fee back on passing
No

Published prices: $5,000 for $39 · $10,000 for $59 · $15,000 for $79 · $25,000 for $149 · $50,000 for $249 · $100,000 for $399 · $200,000 for $799 · $400,000 for $1,599

  • · The 5% daily limit EQUALS the 5% overall drawdown, so on day one both caps sit on the same point and there is no second rope behind the first until profit is banked.
  • · Fifteen minimum trading days, the most on this site, and FXIFY prints the total itself rather than leaving it to be multiplied out from the per-phase figure.
  • · Fifteen percent of profit asked against five percent of drawdown is a difficulty ratio of 3.00, and it is the cheapest programme FXIFY sell at every size.

FXIFY — assessment account rules — read 2026-08-23

The5ers — Bootcamp

Ratio 3.60 · 84% chance a streak ends it

  1. Phase 1 — Step 1 6% to make
  2. Phase 2 — Step 2 6% to make
  3. Phase 3 — Step 3 6% to make
Total profit target
18%
Maximum overall loss
5% — static, from the starting balance
Daily loss limit
None published
Consecutive losers it survives
5 at 1% risk
Minimum trading days
None published
Time limit
None published
Published maximum split
100%
Fee back on passing
Not published

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.

The5ers — challenge programmes explained — read 2026-08-05

Alpha Capital Group — Alpha Three

Ratio 2.67 · 95% chance a streak ends it

  1. Phase 1 — Phase 1 8% to make
  2. Phase 2 — Phase 2 4% to make
  3. Phase 3 — Phase 3 4% to make
Total profit target
16%
Maximum overall loss
6% — static, from the starting balance
Daily loss limit
4% — effect not published
Consecutive losers it survives
4 at 1% risk
Minimum trading days
3
Time limit
None published
Published maximum split
80%
Fee back on passing
No

Published prices: $10,000 for $67 · $25,000 for $157 · $50,000 for $247 · $100,000 for $397 · $200,000 for $697

Alpha Capital — rules explained — read 2026-08-05

Goat Funded Trader — 3 Step Model

Ratio 2.25 · 96% chance a streak ends it

  1. Phase 1 — Phase 1 6% to make
  2. Phase 2 — Phase 2 6% to make
  3. Phase 3 — Phase 3 6% to make
Total profit target
18%
Maximum overall loss
8% — static, from the starting balance
Daily loss limit
4% — ends the attempt
Consecutive losers it survives
4 at 1% risk
Minimum trading days
None published
Time limit
None published
Published maximum split
No maximum published
Fee back on passing
No

Published prices: none recorded for this programme — the firm publishes the rules without a fee we can attribute to them.

Goat Funded Trader — models — read 2026-08-06

Maven Trading — Standard 3-Step

Ratio 3.00 · >99% chance a streak ends it

  1. Phase 1 — Phase 1 3% to make
  2. Phase 2 — Phase 2 3% to make
  3. Phase 3 — Phase 3 3% to make
Total profit target
9%
Maximum overall loss
3% — static, from the starting balance
Daily loss limit
2% — ends the attempt
Consecutive losers it survives
2 at 1% risk
Minimum trading days
None published
Time limit
None published
Published maximum split
80%
Fee back on passing
No

Published prices: $2,000 for $12 · $5,000 for $16 · $10,000 for $35 · $20,000 for $69 · $50,000 for $171 · $100,000 for $270

  • · Three percent asked three times against a three percent drawdown: the smallest per-phase target on this site paired with one of the smallest caps.
  • · The 2% daily limit is the tightest Maven sell, and at 1% risk per trade it ends the attempt after two consecutive losses.

Maven Trading — FAQ — read 2026-08-23

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 40 two-phase programmes here, these 5 ask only 0.2 percentage points more total profit. What no pricing page prints beside that comparison is the rope. The mean total drawdown allowance across these 5 is 5.4% against 9.7% two-phase — 4.3 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 78 of the 90 programmes here loosen to compensate. The daily loss limit averages 3.8% across the 4 of these 5 that publish one, against 4.7% across all 40 two-phase programmes — 0.9 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 76 trades against 45 for a single phase and 75 for two, while the average three-phase programme survives 4.0 consecutive losers — 0.7 fewer than the two-phase mean of 4.7. 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.

Where both are priced, the longer evaluation is usually the cheaper one

Across 70 same-balance comparisons, over 10 starting balances, at 3 firms — 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 57, more in 8 and the same in 5. Same firm, same balance, same currency: the one price comparison on this page that is genuinely like for like, and a sample 3 firms wide.

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.

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: 52 of the 85 one- and two-phase programmes here compute worse than FXIFY's Three Phase, the best of these 5. 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 4 of the 85 shorter programmes carry a difficulty ratio above the lowest of these 5, which is 2.25: Lux Trading Firm's 1-Step Evaluation — $1M, Maven Trading's Prediction Markets One-Step Essential, Breakout's 1-Step Turbo and Breakout's 1-Step Pro. At or above 2.25 the whole field holds 9 programmes of any format, and 5 of them are these.

For 1 of the 5 — 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

Most of these compute worse than the mean of every other format in the table above. What follows is the least bad of the 5 on one measure, not an argument that the format is a good buy.

On the numbers above

FXIFY — Three Phase

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 78% — 6 percentage points clear of The5ers' Bootcamp, 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.

Open FXIFY → Read its rules here first

Questions

Which prop firms have 3 phase challenges?
FXIFY (Three Phase), The5ers (Bootcamp), Alpha Capital Group (Alpha Three), Goat Funded Trader (3 Step Model) and Maven Trading (Standard 3-Step) — 5 of the 26 firms whose rules we have read from their own documents, and 5 of the 90 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 5 three-phase programmes average a difficulty ratio of 2.90 — total profit target divided by total drawdown allowance — against 1.53 across the 45 one-phase programmes and 1.55 across the 40 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 91% against 78% and 82%. 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 5 ask 0.2 percentage points more total profit against a total drawdown allowance 4.3 points tighter. The daily loss limit — the cap that ends the attempt before the overall drawdown does on 78 of the 90 programmes here — averages 0.9 points tighter than the two-phase mean rather than looser. At 1% risk that works out at an average of 76 trades to clear the whole evaluation against 75, while surviving an average of 4.0 consecutive losers against 4.7. 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 70 same-balance comparisons, over 10 starting balances, at 3 firms — 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 57, more in 8 and the same in 5. Across 3 firms — FXIFY, Alpha Capital Group and Maven Trading — the hardest format is generally the cheaper of the two. 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.
FXIFY → The5ers → Alpha Capital Group → Goat Funded Trader → Maven Trading →