Two-step challenges, ranked by what actually ends them
21 two-phase programmes, ranked not by the profit they ask for but by the chance a losing streak ends the attempt before you get there. At 1% risk per trade they run from 19% to 98%.
Unlike the one-step field, the difficulty ratio mostly works here — the cheapest ratios really are the easiest programmes. One programme breaks it, and it is the one named for flexibility.
Every one we have read
| Programme | Ratio | Target | Daily | Breaching it | Losses | Fails |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fidelcrest Micro Trader — Aggressive | 1.50 | 15% + 15% | 10% | Ends the attempt | 10 | 19% |
| Fidelcrest Pro Trader — Aggressive | 2.00 | 20% + 20% | 10% | Ends the attempt | 10 | 25% |
| Fidelcrest Micro Trader — Normal | 1.00 | 5% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 63% |
| FundedNext Stellar 2-Step | 1.30 | 8% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 73% |
| Funding Pips 2 Step Standard | 1.30 | 8% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 73% |
| FTMO 2-Step | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 78% |
| The5ers High Stakes | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 78% |
| Alpha Capital Group Alpha Pro 10% | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Not published | 5 | 78% our reading |
| Alpha Capital Group Alpha Swing | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Not published | 5 | 78% our reading |
| Goat Funded Trader 2-Step Standard | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 78% |
| HyroTrader Two-Step Challenge | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 78% |
| City Traders Imperium 2-Step Challenge | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Not published | 5 | 78% our reading |
| Audacity Capital Ability Challenge | 1.50 | 10% + 5% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 78% |
| Fidelcrest Pro Trader — Normal | 2.00 | 10% + 10% | 5% | Ends the attempt | 5 | 87% |
| FundedNext Stellar Lite | 1.50 | 8% + 4% | 4% | Ends the attempt | 4 | 89% |
| Alpha Capital Group Alpha Pro 8% | 1.63 | 8% + 5% | 4% | Not published | 4 | 91% our reading |
| Funded Trading Plus 2-Step Classic | 1.75 | 7% + 7% | 4% | Ends the attempt | 4 | 92% |
| Goat Funded Trader 2 Step GOAT Model | 1.40 | 8% + 6% | 4% | Ends the attempt | 4 | 92% |
| Funding Pips 2 Step Flex | 1.33 | 10% + 6% | 4% | Ends the attempt | 4 | 95% |
| Funding Pips 2 Step Pro | 2.00 | 6% + 6% | 3% | Ends the attempt | 3 | 98% |
| Alpha Capital Group Alpha Pro 6% | 2.00 | 6% + 6% | 3% | Not published | 3 | 98% our reading |
At 1% risk per trade, a 40% win rate and 2R winners. On 21 of these 21 the daily limit is the cap that ends the attempt, so the overall drawdown decides nothing at this size.
Where the ratio still misleads
Fidelcrest's Micro Trader — Aggressive, Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive, Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Normal, Goat Funded Trader's 2 Step GOAT Model and Funding Pips' 2 Step Flex sits near the front of this field on difficulty ratio and near the back on the arithmetic. It publishes the largest drawdown here — the number a buyer compares on — and pairs it with a daily limit tight enough that the drawdown is never reached.
Against its own stablemate it is cheaper, roomier and more flexible — and fails far more often.
Why two phases are usually the easier buy
A second phase adds profit to make, and that is real. But it is priced as the harder product while the tighter daily limit that comes with one-step programmes is not priced at all — and the daily limit is what ends attempts. More target costs you time; a tighter cap costs you the attempt.
Every programme in this table also uses a trailing-close or static drawdown, measured from where you started rather than trailing your equity high. Profit you bank buys room beneath you, which on a trailing drawdown it does not. These figures do not credit you with that, so this field is shown at its worst.
For 5 of these, what breaching the daily limit does is not published — Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Pro 10%, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Swing, City Traders Imperium's 2-Step Challenge, Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Pro 8% and Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Pro 6%. Their figures take the conservative reading and are marked as ours rather than theirs.
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.
- · Fees are published against account sizes on some of these pages and not others, so price is not ranked here.
- · Nothing here is about whether a firm pays out. It compares the chance of being stopped by a losing streak.
On the numbers above
Fidelcrest — Micro Trader — Aggressive
It comes out ahead on the chance a losing streak ends the attempt, at 1% risk per trade, at 19% — 6 percentage points clear of Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive, 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, or the fee, which these firms publish inconsistently.
Questions
- Which two-step prop firm challenge is easiest to pass?
- Fidelcrest's Micro Trader — Aggressive, at roughly 19% chance of a losing streak ending the attempt at 1% risk per trade, against 98% for Alpha Capital Group's Alpha Pro 6%. It wins on the two rules that decide it: the widest daily loss limit in the field and the lowest total profit target, which together mean the fewest trades spent exposed to the tightest cap.
- Are two-step challenges easier than one-step?
- Generally yes, which is the reverse of how they are priced. A second phase adds profit to make, and that is real. But firms pair the single phase with a tighter daily limit, and the daily limit is what ends attempts — so the extra target costs you time while the tighter limit costs you the attempt. The best two-step programmes here sit well ahead of every one-step programme we have read.
- Does the difficulty ratio work on two-step challenges?
- Mostly, and that is worth saying because it does not on one-step ones. Ranked by ratio this field comes out close to its ranking by outcome — Fidelcrest's Micro Trader — Normal at the top and the highest ratios at the bottom. The exception is Fidelcrest's Micro Trader — Aggressive, Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Aggressive, Fidelcrest's Pro Trader — Normal, Goat Funded Trader's 2 Step GOAT Model and Funding Pips' 2 Step Flex, which the ratio places near the front and the arithmetic places near the back.
- Why is every drawdown in this table the same type?
- Because every two-step programme we have read uses a trailing-close or static drawdown, measured from the starting balance rather than trailing your equity high. That is a genuine advantage of the format: profit you bank buys room beneath you, which on a trailing drawdown it does not. It also means these figures are pessimistic here, since they apply each cap at its starting level.