Start here · Stage 1 · Free
Every funded futures firm offers the same evaluation across four or five account sizes — $25K, $50K, $100K, $150K, and sometimes $200K. The instinct is to pick a size based on how much money you want to make. The correct way to pick is based on what the sizing formula outputs at each tier, whether that output lets you trade your actual instrument at your actual stop width, and whether you have the proven consistency to pass the evaluation at that level without compressing your process. Buying a tier too large for your current edge is one of the most common and most expensive mistakes in funded futures trading.
Part 1 of 4 — What the account size choice actually determines
Most traders pick an account size based on how large they want the funded account to be. That is a payout decision, not a trading decision. The correct frame is: at which tier does my position sizing formula produce a number I can actually trade with?
Most funded futures firms set the profit target as a fixed percentage of the account size — typically 8 to 10 percent. At 8 percent, a $25K account requires $2,000 in net profit to pass. A $50K account requires $4,000. A $100K account requires $8,000. The percentage stays roughly constant across tiers, so a larger account does not have a more generous profit target in percentage terms — it has a proportionally larger dollar target that requires more qualifying sessions to reach.
The implication for account size selection: a larger account does not let you pass faster. At formula-correct per-session sizing, a $100K account requires more total sessions to reach the $8,000 target than a $25K account needs to reach $2,000. The evaluation timeline is set by the combination of profit target, per-session pace ceiling, and minimum trading days — and that timeline does not shrink proportionally at larger tiers. See how long to pass a funded futures evaluation for the three-gate timeline calculation and how to identify which gate closes last.
At a $25K account with a $1,500 trailing drawdown, the distance from balance to floor is 6 percent of account size. At a $100K account with a $3,500 trailing drawdown, the distance is 3.5 percent of account size. The absolute dollar amount grows, but the percentage shrinks — larger accounts are more compressed in trailing drawdown terms relative to their size. This is significant because the DTF sets the first input to the position sizing formula: DTF ÷ 10 = maximum per-trade risk from the trailing drawdown constraint.
A $25K account at formula-correct sizing allows roughly $150 per-trade risk from the DTF. A $100K account allows roughly $350. The ceiling grows, but not four-fold. Traders who expect that buying a $100K account gives them four times the per-trade flexibility of a $25K account are typically wrong — the trailing drawdown scaling is sublinear, and the DLL cap (the second sizing input) often imposes a tighter ceiling at the larger tiers than the trailing drawdown does. See funded futures account sizing by tier for the per-tier DTF and DLL math applied to specific account sizes and instruments.
The daily loss limit scales with account size but rarely proportionally. A $25K account might have a $1,000 DLL. A $50K account might have a $1,500 DLL. A $100K account might have $2,500 or $3,000. Because the DLL sizing formula is DLL ÷ 4 = maximum per-trade risk from the daily loss limit, a smaller DLL produces a tighter ceiling than the trailing drawdown formula does at smaller tiers. On a $25K account with a $1,000 DLL, the DLL ÷ 4 output is $250 — but the DTF ÷ 10 output at $1,500 trailing drawdown is $150. The binding constraint is the DTF, not the DLL, and the allowed per-trade risk is $150.
The binding constraint flips at larger tiers. On a $150K account, the trailing drawdown may be $4,500 (DTF ÷ 10 = $450) while the DLL may be $3,000 (DLL ÷ 4 = $750). Here, the DTF constraint is tighter and the DLL is generous. Which formula output is lower is the allowed per-trade risk — always take the more restrictive of the two inputs. Knowing which constraint binds at your target tier tells you whether you need a larger trailing drawdown or a larger DLL to gain more sizing flexibility. See funded futures position sizing for the full formula and why both inputs are required.
The position sizing ceiling from the formula — the lower of DTF ÷ 10 or DLL ÷ 4 — determines which instruments you can trade at which contract count. If the ceiling is $150, one ES contract at a 3-point stop ($150) fits exactly. At a 4-point stop ($200), one ES contract exceeds the ceiling. The only options are: use a tighter stop (which changes the trade), trade zero ES contracts (which means no trade), or move to a smaller-tick instrument like MES where one contract at a 4-point stop costs only $20.
Before buying an evaluation at any tier, map the formula output to your most common instrument and stop width. If the math does not support one contract at your typical stop, the account size is wrong for your trading — regardless of how the payout looks at that tier. This single check prevents the most common structural mismatch in funded futures evaluation: buying a $50K account to trade ES and then discovering the sizing formula requires either compressing stops to widths your setup was not designed for, or holding just one micro-contract while paying the full $50K tier fee.
The evaluation fee scales with account size — a $100K evaluation costs more than a $25K evaluation. This is the parameter most traders focus on when comparing tiers, but it is the only parameter that does not affect your trading once the evaluation starts. The fee structure (one-time reset fee, monthly subscription, or combination) affects how much it costs to restart if you fail, but it does not change what you can trade, how large you can size, or how long the evaluation takes to pass.
The relevant fee comparison is not the absolute cost per tier but the cost-per-attempt at each tier relative to your expected pass rate. If you have a higher pass rate at a smaller tier (because the sizing formula works with your instrument and your process fits the evaluation structure), buying the smaller tier repeatedly costs less per funded account than buying the larger tier once at a lower pass rate. See how much does a funded futures account cost for the full fee structure breakdown across evaluation types and what the true cost-to-funded calculation looks like.
Part 2 of 4 — The four standard tiers compared
These numbers are representative examples from the major funded futures firms as of mid-2026. Firm-specific values vary — always verify the exact trailing drawdown distance and DLL against the firm's current ruleset before selecting a tier.
Typical parameters at the $25K tier: profit target $1,500–$2,500 (8–10 percent), trailing drawdown $1,250–$1,500, daily loss limit $750–$1,000. Applying the sizing formula: DTF ÷ 10 = $125–$150; DLL ÷ 4 = $187–$250. The binding constraint is typically the DTF at $125–$150 per-trade risk.
At a $125–$150 per-trade ceiling, one MNQ contract at a 20-point stop ($40) fits comfortably. One MES contract at a 4-point stop ($20) fits. One ES contract at a 3-point stop ($150) fits exactly but leaves no room for any stop variation. One NQ contract at a 20-point stop ($400) does not fit. The $25K tier is designed for micro-contract trading. Traders who want to trade standard-size contracts on the ES or NQ need to move to a larger tier, or they will spend the evaluation fighting a sizing formula that is too tight for their instrument.
Typical parameters at the $50K tier: profit target $3,000–$5,000 (6–10 percent), trailing drawdown $2,000–$2,500, daily loss limit $1,250–$2,000. Applying the formula: DTF ÷ 10 = $200–$250; DLL ÷ 4 = $312–$500. The binding constraint is typically the DTF at $200–$250.
At a $200–$250 per-trade ceiling, one ES contract at a 4-point stop ($200) fits. One CL contract at a $0.20 stop ($200) fits. One NQ contract at a 5-point stop ($250 after accounting for full-size tick value at $20/point) fits at the tighter end. One MNQ contract at a 50-point stop ($100) fits well within the ceiling and leaves room for two contracts at 25-point stops. The $50K tier is the entry point for traders running standard-size ES or CL at normal stop widths — not because the payout is better, but because the sizing formula first accommodates those instruments at those stops.
Typical parameters at the $100K tier: profit target $6,000–$10,000 (6–10 percent), trailing drawdown $3,000–$3,500, daily loss limit $2,500–$3,000. Applying the formula: DTF ÷ 10 = $300–$350; DLL ÷ 4 = $625–$750. The binding constraint switches: at this tier, the DTF formula typically outputs less than the DLL formula, so DTF ÷ 10 at $300–$350 is the binding ceiling.
At a $300–$350 per-trade ceiling, one ES contract at a 6-point stop ($300) fits. Two ES contracts at a 3-point stop ($300 total) fits. One NQ contract at a 15-point stop ($300) fits. One GC contract at a $3.00 stop ($300) fits. The $100K tier is where traders with an ES or NQ process using wider stops, or traders wanting to scale to two contracts on their primary instrument, will find the sizing formula first supports their actual setup. See best futures instruments for funded accounts for ES, NQ, CL, and GC compared by tick value and stop-width requirements at different account tiers.
Typical parameters at the $150K tier: profit target $9,000–$15,000 (6–10 percent), trailing drawdown $4,000–$5,000, daily loss limit $3,500–$4,000. Applying the formula: DTF ÷ 10 = $400–$500; DLL ÷ 4 = $875–$1,000. The binding constraint is again the DTF at $400–$500.
At a $400–$500 ceiling, two ES contracts at a 4-point stop ($400 total) fit. One NQ contract at a 20-point stop ($400) fits. Three ES contracts at a 3-point stop ($450) fit. The $150K tier is for traders with a proven process at $50K or $100K who want to scale contract count without changing instrument or stop structure. The profit target dollar amount ($9,000–$15,000) requires significantly more qualified sessions to reach than the smaller tiers — the evaluation is longer and the fee is higher. The $150K tier is a scaling tool after proving the process, not a starting point.
Part 3 of 4 — Matching tier to skill level
The goal is not to find the tier with the most attractive payout — it is to find the smallest tier where your actual trading fits the math without requiring you to compress your stops, change your instrument, or trade below one contract.
Start by calculating the formula output at each tier using representative trailing drawdown and DLL values from the firm you are evaluating. For the tier you are considering: DTF ÷ 10 gives the trailing-drawdown-based per-trade ceiling, DLL ÷ 4 gives the daily-loss-limit-based ceiling, and the lower of the two is the allowed per-trade risk. Then calculate the per-contract dollar cost of your typical trade: contracts × tick value per point × stop width in points.
If the per-contract cost of one contract at your typical stop exceeds the formula output, the tier is too small — you cannot trade your actual setup without either compressing the stop or going below one contract. Move to the next tier up and repeat the check. If the formula output supports two contracts at your typical stop, the tier may be larger than you need — consider whether the smaller tier fits one contract, then use the step-up path to scale once funded. The instrument-fit check, not the payout comparison, is the correct starting point for account size selection.
The per-session pace ceiling is the maximum profitable session size that keeps the evaluation on track for the consistency rule: cumulative profit so far × 0.28 gives the approximate daily profit stop (at a 30 percent threshold). Earlier in the evaluation when cumulative profit is small, the pace ceiling is tight — a second session cannot earn more than 28 percent of whatever the first session earned. As the evaluation progresses, the cumulative total grows and the ceiling relaxes.
If your average session in a sim account — before the evaluation — consistently produces $400–$600 in net profit, a $25K evaluation with a $2,000 profit target requires roughly 5–6 qualified sessions at that pace, but the consistency rule will tighten the ceiling on early sessions. If your average session produces $150–$200, the same $2,000 target requires 12–15 sessions with a pace ceiling that is always tight. The correct tier is the one where your actual average session — not your best session — can reach the profit target in a reasonable number of qualifying days without violating the consistency rule on every session. See the consistency rule walkthrough for how the best-day percentage moves session by session and the daily profit stop that keeps it in range.
The step-up path is the systematic approach: find the smallest tier where the sizing formula supports your instrument and stop width, pass that evaluation, run the funded account for one to two payout cycles to demonstrate the process is repeatable, and then purchase an evaluation at the next tier up with the proceeds from the smaller funded account. The step-up path is slower than buying the largest tier immediately, but it builds the funded account track record at lower cost-per-attempt and with lower restart fees if any individual evaluation fails.
The alternative — buying the largest affordable tier immediately — is a bet that you will pass on the first or second attempt. At the $100K or $150K tier, evaluation fees are several hundred dollars per attempt. Two or three failed $150K evaluations at $500 each cost more than five successful $50K evaluations that progressively funded two accounts while proving the process. The step-up path is not a slower road to the same destination — it is a lower-risk structure that compounds funded account access rather than concentrating restart costs at the highest tier. The Funded Firm Radar compares evaluation fees, trailing drawdown distances, and DLL amounts across firms by tier to support this calculation.
Part 4 of 4 — When upgrading to a larger tier is the right move
Upgrading to a larger tier is the correct move only after the current tier's constraints are binding your proven process — not before you have proven the process at the current tier.
If your setup has evolved to use wider stops because the market structure in your instrument requires more room than the current tier's sizing formula allows, the tier has become structurally wrong for your trading. This shows up as consistent losses attributed to "getting stopped out before the move" — a diagnostic that usually signals a stop-width problem, not a setup problem. When the formula output at the current tier forces you to use a stop narrower than your setup requires, move to the next tier up where the larger formula output supports your actual stop. Do not widen your stop beyond what the current tier's math supports as a workaround — that is taking more risk per trade than the evaluation account allows.
When your funded account sessions consistently reach or approach the daily profit stop ceiling — the formula-correct cap on any single session — the current tier is constraining how much your process can express. This is not a reason to violate the daily profit stop; it is a signal that your process has outgrown the ceiling. The correct response is to pass the next tier up, where the larger cumulative profit target gives the consistency rule more room to breathe and the daily profit stop produces a larger per-session cap.
Before upgrading for this reason, verify that the sessions are hitting the ceiling due to genuine process expression — not because you are removing too early or sizing down prematurely out of caution. If you are leaving profitable setups on the table because you are already at the daily stop, the upgrade is warranted. If the ceiling is still comfortable and you are stopping because the session is done, the upgrade is premature.
One successful payout from a funded account demonstrates that you can pass the evaluation and survive the initial adjustment from evaluation to funded trading. Two payouts demonstrate that the first payout was not a single outlier. After two payouts at the current tier, the process is sufficiently proven to justify the cost of a larger evaluation. The upgrade is then not a bet — it is an expansion of a demonstrated process to a larger capital base.
The step-up path works in both directions: after passing the larger evaluation, run the new funded account alongside the existing smaller funded account (not in place of it) for additional margin of safety while the process adjusts to the new tier's constraints. Multiple funded accounts at different tiers is a normal scaling structure — see how to manage a second funded futures account for the independence and combined exposure math when running accounts simultaneously.
The payout from a smaller funded account is not a ceiling on what the studio can generate — it is the starting base for a track record that justifies the next tier. A $50K funded account at a 90/10 profit split generating $300 per session is not a problem to be solved by moving to a $150K account. It is proof that the process works at $50K. If the process works at $50K, it will express at a larger tier after the upgrade is purchased with evidence, not impatience.
Upgrading because the payout feels small is the same impulse as sizing up on a funded account after a good week — the behavioral pattern is identical, and so is the failure mode. Both decisions are made on P&L feeling rather than process evidence. The correct question before any upgrade is: what evidence do I have that the current tier's constraints — not my own limitations — are the binding factor? If the honest answer is "the tier is holding me back," the upgrade is warranted. If the honest answer is "I just want more money," the tier is not the variable that needs to change. See funded futures account sizing by tier for the detailed math at each level including the binding constraint crossover formula.
Start at the smallest size where the position sizing formula still works for your instrument and your actual stop width. If your typical trade on the ES uses a 4-point stop and one contract costs $200 at that stop, the $25K tier's DTF-based per-trade ceiling (roughly $150) is too tight to trade one contract without compressing your stop below what your setup requires. In that case, $50K is the correct starting size — not because it produces bigger payouts, but because it is the smallest tier where your actual trading fits the math. If you are trading MNQ or MES, a $25K account usually works. If you are trading ES, NQ, or CL at normal stop widths, a $50K or $100K account is typically the correct starting point.
Only the evaluation fee is at risk — the capital in the evaluation account is not yours and cannot be lost in the traditional sense. The risk of a larger account is the higher evaluation fee (and monthly fee on subscription-model evaluations) if you fail and need to restart. A $25K evaluation might cost $100–150 to restart. A $100K evaluation might cost $400–600 or more. The financial exposure scales with the tier, but the underlying risk to the market is the same: you can only lose what the firm's rules let you lose, and the DLL and trailing drawdown floor stop the account before the losses become larger than the fee you paid.
Yes — most firms allow you to purchase evaluations at any tier independently, and passing a $50K evaluation does not automatically grant access to a $100K funded account. The step-up path works like this: pass the smaller evaluation, run the funded account for one or two payout periods to establish a track record, then purchase a larger evaluation at the next tier. Some firms offer loyalty discounts or upgrade paths for existing funded traders, but the evaluation itself must still be passed at the new size. The step-up path is slower than buying the large account immediately, but it lets you prove the process works before committing a larger evaluation fee.
Most firms set the profit target as a fixed percentage of the account size — typically 8 to 10 percent — so the dollar amount scales proportionally. A $25K account at 8 percent requires $2,000 in profit. A $100K account at 8 percent requires $8,000. The percentage stays roughly the same. What changes is the number of qualifying sessions required to hit the dollar target at a formula-correct per-session pace. A $100K account with a per-session pace ceiling of roughly $400–$500 requires more qualifying sessions to reach $8,000 than a $25K account needs to reach $2,000. Larger accounts do not have easier profit targets in percentage terms — they require more total sessions because the absolute dollar target is proportionally larger.
That is the clearest sign the account size is too small for your instrument and setup. If a single trade at your normal stop width would consume more than 25 percent of the daily loss limit, the sizing formula forces you to either reduce contracts below one (impossible) or use a tighter stop than your setup requires — which changes the trade entirely. The solution is to move to a larger tier where DLL divided by 4 produces a per-trade ceiling that accommodates one contract at your actual stop. Alternatively, move to a smaller-tick instrument — MNQ instead of NQ, MES instead of ES — where the dollar cost per point is low enough to fit the smaller account's sizing constraints.
The right account size is the smallest tier where your instrument, your stop width, and your process fit the position sizing formula without compression.
Choosing the wrong tier is one of the most expensive structural mistakes in funded futures trading. The method covers the exact calculation flow from instrument and stop width to tier selection, with the funded-account track record criteria that tell you when the upgrade is earned. First 100 founding seats at $19/mo — locked for life.