Pick a firm and pass the eval · Stage 2 · Free
Most traders pick an evaluation structure based on which monthly fee looks lower. That comparison ignores how many months each phase realistically takes, what happens when Phase 2 is failed after Phase 1 is passed, and how the combined probability of reaching a funded account compares between the two structures. This article covers all four comparison points and ends with the decision test that tells you which structure to pick.
Part 1 of 4 — What one-step and two-step evaluations actually are
Understanding what each structure actually requires — before comparing cost or difficulty — prevents the most common mistake: choosing based on marketing framing rather than on the mechanics.
In a one-step evaluation, the trader must hit a single profit target while keeping all rules intact — trailing drawdown floor above the termination level, daily loss limit never breached, and consistency rule ratio within the allowed threshold at the time of the pass. Once the profit target is reached with all rules intact and the minimum trading day count is met, the evaluation ends and a funded contract activates.
The typical parameters for a one-step evaluation on a $50,000 account: profit target of $3,000 (6%), trailing drawdown of $2,500 (5%), daily loss limit of $1,000 to $1,500 (2-3%), and minimum trading days of 5 to 10. Exact figures vary by firm. The evaluation can run indefinitely until the profit target is hit or a rule is violated — there is no maximum time limit at most firms, only the monthly subscription fee continuing until the evaluation concludes.
The advantage of the one-step structure is speed: a trader with a consistent process can complete the evaluation in minimum trading days without waiting for a second phase to activate. The risk is that there is no second chance if you come close to the profit target but then violate a rule — the evaluation ends and a new one must be purchased. Resets are available at most firms, but each reset restarts the metrics from zero.
In a two-step evaluation, passing Phase 1 activates Phase 2. Passing Phase 2 activates the funded contract. Each phase has its own profit target, minimum trading days, and the same trailing drawdown and DLL rules. Phase 1 typically carries a higher profit target (8-10%); Phase 2 carries a lower one (4-5%). The trailing drawdown and DLL parameters are usually identical across both phases, though some firms relax DLL headroom slightly in Phase 2.
The conceptual intent of the two-phase structure is that Phase 1 proves the trader can build profit consistently under full rules, and Phase 2 confirms the Phase 1 result was not a single-session anomaly. In practice, Phase 2 is not easier than Phase 1: the profit target is lower, but the behavioral pressure of being one step away from a funded contract changes how many traders manage risk in Phase 2 — often toward worse outcomes, not better.
Failing Phase 2 after passing Phase 1 is common. Most firms let you restart Phase 2 — either at no additional cost or at a reduced reset fee — without requiring you to repeat Phase 1. The exception is firms with a restart-from-scratch policy on Phase 2 failure; confirm the specific policy before purchasing a two-step evaluation if this matters to your cost projection.
Part 2 of 4 — Total cost comparison
A lower Phase 1 monthly fee does not make a two-step evaluation cheaper if Phase 2 regularly costs an additional month of fees or a reset fee. The only honest comparison is total cost per funded contract, not cost per phase.
For a one-step evaluation: the total cost to a funded contract is the monthly evaluation fee multiplied by the number of months (or partial months) it takes to pass, plus any reset fees paid during that time. If you pay $150/month and pass in 10 trading days on the first attempt, the total cost is $150. If you reset once and pass in the second attempt within the same month, total cost is $150 (subscription) + reset fee (typically $50-80) = $200-230.
For a two-step evaluation: the total cost is Phase 1 fees (monthly fee × months to pass Phase 1, plus any Phase 1 resets) plus Phase 2 fees (Phase 2 monthly fee × months to pass Phase 2, plus any Phase 2 restarts). If Phase 1 is $90/month and takes three weeks, Phase 2 is $60/month and takes two weeks within one billing cycle, and you pass both on the first attempt, total cost is approximately $90 + $60 = $150 — competitive with the one-step. If Phase 1 takes six weeks due to a reset, total cost rises to $90 + $45 (pro-rated additional time, or full second month depending on firm billing) + reset fee = $180-200 before Phase 2 begins.
The key variable is how many attempts each structure realistically requires for your process. A trader who consistently passes evaluations in minimum trading days on the first attempt will find one-step and two-step roughly cost-comparable per funded contract. A trader who frequently needs one reset to pass will find the one-step reset cost (one phase × one reset fee) is lower than the two-step reset cost (Phase 1 resets may need Phase 1 to be completed again before Phase 2 re-opens).
One-step minimum timeline: the minimum trading days requirement, which typically ranges from 5 to 10 qualifying sessions. A trader who averages one qualifying session per day can technically complete a one-step evaluation in 5-10 trading days. In practice, most funded traders take longer — either because they are managing session pacing to stay within the consistency rule, because they are sizing conservatively early in the evaluation, or because they encounter a news day that they correctly elect to sit out.
Two-step minimum timeline: the minimum trading days for Phase 1 plus the minimum trading days for Phase 2 — often 10-20 days total for both phases, assuming first-attempt passes in both. The Phase 2 minimum day count is the non-negotiable floor even if you hit the profit target early. If Phase 1 requires 5 minimum days and Phase 2 requires 5 minimum days, the fastest possible route to a funded contract on a two-step is 10 trading days — double the theoretical minimum of a one-step with a 5-day requirement.
For traders prioritizing time to funded, one-step structures have a structural time advantage at every minimum-day count. For traders who value the Phase 2 confirmation period as a genuine accountability check, the additional time is a feature rather than a cost.
Part 3 of 4 — Combined pass rates and Phase 2 failure risk
The combined probability of passing both phases of a two-step evaluation is lower than the probability of passing a one-step evaluation in a single attempt. Understanding why this happens — and whether it applies to your trading — determines whether the two-step structure helps or hinders you.
Funded futures firms do not consistently publish phase-specific pass rate data. The general pattern from available data and community observation: Phase 1 pass rates for standard account sizes tend to fall in the 20-35% range per attempt. Phase 2 conditional pass rates — among traders who passed Phase 1 — tend to fall in the 50-65% range. Multiplying these: a 30% Phase 1 rate times a 60% conditional Phase 2 rate produces an 18% combined funded rate per two-step attempt.
For comparison, one-step evaluations in the same account tier tend to show funded rates in the 25-30% range per attempt. The one-step rate is higher in part because the single-phase structure filters out only the most common failure modes; the two-step rate is lower in part because Phase 2 catches traders who passed Phase 1 through variance rather than through a verified repeatable process.
Neither structure guarantees a particular outcome. The funded rate per attempt is a distribution property — your personal rate depends entirely on whether your process is consistent enough to pass under the rules, and that property is the same regardless of whether you are in a one-step or a two-step evaluation.
The most common Phase 2 failure mode is behavioral shift after the Phase 1 pass. Three patterns account for most Phase 2 failures:
Sizing up in Phase 2. The lower Phase 2 profit target is sometimes interpreted as an easier target — which prompts traders to size up to reach it faster. Higher position size in Phase 2 means a single adverse move consumes more daily loss limit than it would have in Phase 1. DLL violations in Phase 2 end the phase with the same finality as they would have in Phase 1. The only difference is that the position-sizing formula that worked in Phase 1 still works exactly the same way in Phase 2 — it just needs to actually be applied, not replaced with a larger size on the assumption that Phase 2 is a formality.
Relaxed session discipline. Traders who held strict session entry and exit discipline in Phase 1 — no trades in the dead zone, news calendar checked before each session, hard stop at the daily loss limit — sometimes loosen those habits in Phase 2 because Phase 1 felt "done." Phase 2 has the same DLL and the same trailing drawdown floor. The only thing that changed is the profit target. Session discipline standards do not change between phases.
Consistency rule trap in Phase 2. If Phase 2 has a shorter duration than Phase 1, the consistency rule denominator (total net profit for the period) is built from fewer sessions. A single strong session can consume a larger fraction of the period's cumulative profit than it would have in a longer Phase 1 evaluation. Traders who did not run the best-day percentage formula proactively in Phase 1 sometimes hit a consistency violation in Phase 2 on a session that, in isolation, looked completely normal.
At most funded futures firms offering two-step evaluations, a Phase 2 failure triggers a Phase 2 restart — not a return to Phase 1. The Phase 1 pass is typically preserved. The Phase 2 restart fee (if any) is usually lower than a new Phase 1 evaluation purchase. Some firms offer Phase 2 restarts at no additional cost within a specific window after the Phase 2 failure. The mechanics vary by firm; the only reliable source is the firm's current terms of service, not community summaries.
The practical implication: the cost of a Phase 2 failure is usually lower than the cost of a one-step evaluation restart. If you are close to a funded contract, failing Phase 2 and restarting Phase 2 is often less expensive than starting over from a one-step purchase. This is one legitimate advantage of the two-step structure: Phase 2 failure is partially insulated from the full cost of starting over.
However, this insurance has a limit. If Phase 2 is failed repeatedly due to the same behavioral pattern — the same session where sizing creep, news event exposure, or a consistency rule miscalculation ends the phase — each restart is money spent on demonstrating the same problem rather than on approaching a funded contract. At that point, the correct move is to identify and fix the behavioral cause before buying another Phase 2 restart, the same way you would before buying a new one-step evaluation after multiple failures.
Part 4 of 4 — Which structure fits which trader
Neither structure makes passing easier. The rules are the same in both. The decision between one-step and two-step is a cost structure decision and a time preference decision — not a difficulty decision.
One-step evaluations fit traders who have a tested process and want to reach a funded contract as quickly as possible with minimum total fee exposure. The single-phase structure means no Phase 2 behavioral shift risk, no second monthly fee period, and no second minimum trading day requirement. If you can consistently pass evaluations in minimum trading days at appropriate position size — using the position sizing formula from the trailing drawdown distance and daily loss limit rather than from a profit target pace — the one-step structure produces funded contracts at the lowest cost per activation.
One-step also fits traders who have failed Phase 2 of a two-step evaluation repeatedly for behavioral reasons. Choosing a one-step evaluation does not protect against behavioral problems, but it consolidates the problem into one phase rather than splitting it across two phases and two fee periods. If the behavioral problem is identifiable and fixable, a one-step evaluation that ends in a reset after a DLL violation costs less than a two-step structure where Phase 1 passes on first attempt but Phase 2 requires three restarts before passing.
The self-diagnostic question for one-step: can you name the position size you will use in session one and confirm it is derived from the DTF/10 and DLL/4 formula rather than from the profit target pace? If yes, one-step is appropriate. If the session one plan is "I'll size normally and then adjust if I get close to a rule," one-step and two-step will produce identical results — neither structure fixes an undefined pre-session sizing routine.
Two-step evaluations fit traders who benefit from a lower per-phase cost that makes repetition more affordable while the process is still being verified, and who want a second accountability period before the funded contract activates. If your Phase 1 pass rate is lower than you would like — meaning you frequently need to reset — the lower Phase 1 fee makes each attempt less costly per learning cycle. This is a legitimate fit, provided that each failed attempt produces a specific behavioral lesson rather than a general sense of bad luck.
Two-step also fits traders who want to use the Phase 1 → Phase 2 progression as a genuine staging structure: Phase 1 proves you can build consistent profit under full rules; Phase 2 confirms the Phase 1 result over a second independent window. If you approach Phase 2 with the same sizing discipline and session standards as Phase 1 — and you genuinely treat Phase 2 as a second evaluation rather than a formality — the two-phase structure provides real confirmation value before capital from a funded account is at stake.
The two-step trap to avoid: choosing the two-step structure because it feels more forgiving or because the Phase 1 profit target looks easier than the one-step target. Phase 2 failure rates are significant, and the problems that end Phase 2 are the same problems that would end Phase 1 or blow a funded account. The structure provides one additional recovery layer — Phase 2 restart without full restart — but it does not provide protection from the behavioral patterns that cause evaluation failures in any structure.
Before choosing a structure, answer three questions:
1. What is my realistic attempt count to pass a phase? If you typically pass on first or second attempt, both structures are viable. If you regularly need three or more attempts, two-step's lower per-phase cost reduces the total cost per funded contract on Phase 1 — but Phase 2 restarts add back cost if the same failure pattern repeats in Phase 2.
2. How important is time to funded? One-step has a time advantage at every minimum-day count. If reaching a funded contract as quickly as possible is the priority — because you are managing evaluation fee cash flow against expected payout income — one-step is the faster structural path. If time to funded is less important than per-attempt cost, two-step may be a better fit.
3. Will I treat Phase 2 as a second evaluation or as a formality? If the honest answer is "a formality," two-step is the wrong structure — you will change your behavior in Phase 2 in exactly the ways that end it prematurely. If the honest answer is "a second evaluation, with the same sizing discipline and session standards as Phase 1," two-step provides a genuine second confirmation window. Only the second answer produces funded accounts at rates consistent with Phase 1 pass rates.
One-step evaluations are harder to pass in a single attempt — there is one phase and no second chance. Two-step evaluations have a lower per-phase profit target, but the combined probability of passing both phases in a first-attempt sequence is typically lower than the probability of passing a one-step evaluation in a single attempt. Passing Phase 1 does not make Phase 2 likely; most Phase 2 failures come from behavioral changes after Phase 1, not from the Phase 2 rules being stricter. The rules are the same in both structures — trailing drawdown, DLL, and the consistency rule apply equally.
Yes, and it is common. Phase 2 has its own profit target, minimum trading days, daily loss limit, and trailing drawdown rules — all of which can end the phase before the target is reached. At most firms, a Phase 2 failure means restarting Phase 2 rather than Phase 1. Check your firm's specific policy on Phase 2 restart cost before assuming it is free or low-cost. The behavioral pattern that ends Phase 2 — usually sizing creep, relaxed session discipline, or a consistency rule violation — is the same pattern that would end Phase 1 or blow a funded account if Phase 2 were not there to catch it first.
Funded futures firms do not consistently publish pass rate data by structure. From available data and community observation, Phase 1 pass rates tend to fall in the 20-35% range per attempt, and Phase 2 conditional pass rates among Phase 1 passers tend to fall in the 50-65% range. Multiplying these gives a combined funded rate of roughly 10-23% per two-step attempt. One-step funded rates per attempt tend to fall in the 25-30% range. Neither rate is guaranteed — your personal rate depends on whether your process is consistent enough to pass under the rules in either structure.
Not necessarily, and often no. The monthly fee for a one-step evaluation is typically higher than either phase of a two-step evaluation, but total cost to a funded contract depends on how many months each phase takes and how many attempts are required. A one-step at $150/month completed in 10 trading days costs $150 total. A two-step at $90 Phase 1 and $60 Phase 2, each completed within one billing cycle, costs the same $150. Total cost diverges when phases take longer or require resets. Calculate total cost per funded contract, not monthly fees per phase, before deciding which structure is cheaper for your situation.
Neither structure protects a beginner from the three rules that end evaluations: trailing drawdown, daily loss limit, and consistency rule. Two-step evaluations are more accessible for traders still establishing their process — lower per-phase cost makes repetition more affordable, and Phase 2 provides a second accountability window before the funded contract activates. The risk is that passing Phase 1 often changes behavior in Phase 2 toward worse outcomes. Before choosing a structure, understand how trailing drawdown works, how the consistency rule is calculated, and what happens when the DLL is breached. The structure choice matters less than whether the rules are understood well enough to trade within them consistently.
Evaluation structure, position sizing, and the session discipline that passes both phases — built from running real funded futures evaluations across multiple firms.
Most evaluation failures happen because traders change their behavior between phases or between sessions, not because the rules are impossible. The method builds the habits that do not shift under pressure. First 100 founding seats at $19/mo — locked for life.