83 of 90 evaluations have no deadline
7 challenges still run against a clock, and it is in nobody’s difficulty figure — including ours
A deadline used to be standard and is now the exception: 83 of the 90 evaluations read here carry none at all. The 7 that keep one are worth naming, because the pace they demand runs from 0.4 trades a day to 6.7.
Every failure probability on this site answers one question — whether a losing run ends the attempt before the target is reached — and the model never reads the deadline. That is defensible and it has a consequence: each of these seven is harder than the number printed beside it, by an amount nobody here claims to know.
The 7, by the pace the deadline demands
| Firm | Programme | Days | Min days | Target | Trades | A day | Fails, ignoring the clock |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fidelcrest | Pro Trader — Aggressive | 30 | 10 | 40% | 200 | 6.7 | 25% |
| Fidelcrest | Micro Trader — Aggressive | 30 | 5 | 30% | 150 | 5.0 | 19% |
| FXIFY | Lightning Challenge | 7 | — | 5% | 25 | 3.6 | 80% |
| Fidelcrest | Pro Trader — Normal | 30 | 10 | 20% | 100 | 3.3 | 87% |
| DNA Funded | Rapid (10 Days) | 10 | 3 | 5% | 25 | 2.5 | 80% |
| Fidelcrest | Micro Trader — Normal | 30 | 10 | 10% | 50 | 1.7 | 63% |
| Maven Trading | Two Step Omo | 180 | 4 | 14% | 70 | 0.4 | 92% |
Trades are what the target needs on average at 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners — an expectation, not a requirement, and a good run gets there in fewer. The last column is this site’s usual failure figure, and it does not include the deadline at all.
A deadline is a ratio, not a number
180 days sounds generous and 7 sounds brutal, and neither number means anything on its own. What matters is the target inside the window: Maven Trading's Two Step Omo asks 14% in 180 days, which is 0.4 trades a day and no constraint at all — the deadline is there to close abandoned accounts. Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive asks 40% in 30, which is 6.7 a day, every day, for a month.
That is the shape Fidelcrest’s Normal against its own Aggressive turns on. Aggressive doubles the caps and the target together, so it is materially safer per trade and computes far better on the streak measure — and it needs twice the trades inside the same window. Safety you cannot reach at the required pace is theoretical.
The seven here are the whole population of deadlines on this site, so this is not a sample of a larger pattern. It is the pattern.
Two of these clocks are shorter than they look
FXIFY's Lightning Challenge publishes 7 calendar days and, inside them, a cap of five trading days: “a maximum of 7 calendar days to reach the profit target (5 trading days)”. So the 3.6 trades a day in the table above is measured against the wrong denominator — against the days you may actually trade it is nearer 5.0.
Maven Trading’s Mini is not in the table because it has no evaluation to fail, and it carries the shortest clock on this site by a distance: “You have 24 hours to trade on the account. The timer starts once you’ve placed your first trade.” One payout, then the account closes.
The floor is more common than the ceiling
55 of the 90 evaluations here set a minimum number of trading days, against 7 that set a deadline. It is the same clock read the other way, and it works in the opposite direction: it stops an attempt ending early rather than late.
That has a cost nothing on this site measures. Reach the target on day two of a three-day minimum and you are not finished — you keep trading, at full risk, with the target already met and nothing further to gain. Every one of those trades can still breach a cap. 6 of the programmes above carry both a floor and a ceiling on the same attempt.
Maven Trading push it furthest: their Two Step Omo requires four profitable days worth at least 0.5% each, in every phase including the funded one, and the firm states that these override the profit target. A floor made of winning days is a floor that can move.
What this does not measure
- · Whether you can trade at that pace. The trades-a-day column is arithmetic, not advice. A strategy that takes two setups a week does not become a strategy that takes six a day because a deadline says so.
- · That the trade count is an expectation. It is what the target needs on average at the stated win rate and reward-to-risk. A good run reaches it in far fewer; a bad one never does, and the failure column is about that case.
- · Whether the deadline covers each phase or all of them. Maven state theirs covers both evaluation phases together — “there is no separate deadline per phase” — and not every firm here is that explicit.
- · 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 any of these firms pay. No published rule answers that.
Where these rules were read
Fidelcrest — programs — read 2026-08-06
FXIFY — assessment account rules — read 2026-08-23
DNA Funded — Rules and Conditions V2.1 — read 2026-08-23
Maven Trading — FAQ — read 2026-08-23
Questions
- Do prop firm challenges still have a time limit?
- Mostly not. Of the 90 evaluations whose rules are read here, 83 carry no deadline at all and 7 do — Fidelcrest, FXIFY, DNA Funded, Maven Trading. The shortest is FXIFY's Lightning Challenge at 7 days; the longest is Maven Trading's Two Step Omo at 180.
- Does a time limit make a challenge harder?
- It depends entirely on the ratio between the target and the window, and that ratio varies more than the window does. Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive asks 40% inside 30 days, which at 1% risk with a 40% win rate at 2R is about 200 trades — 6.7 a day. Maven Trading's Two Step Omo asks 14% inside 180 days, which is 0.4 a day and no constraint at all.
- Is the time limit in the failure figures on this site?
- No, and that is worth saying plainly. Every probability here answers one question — whether a losing run ends the attempt before the target is reached — and a deadline is a different question, so the model never reads it. The consequence is that all seven programmes on this page are harder than the figure printed beside them, by an amount this site does not claim to know.
- What about a minimum number of trading days?
- The other end of the same clock, and far more common: 55 of the 90 evaluations carry one, against 7 with a deadline. It works the opposite way — it stops an attempt ending early rather than late. Reach the target on day two of a three-day minimum and you keep trading, at full risk, with the target already met and nothing further to gain. 6 of the programmes below carry both, which is a floor and a ceiling on the same attempt.