Pricing in this industry is less standardised than it should be, which makes comparison harder than it needs to be. Broadly, providers charge in one of three ways, and understanding which model you are looking at matters more than the headline number.

The three pricing models

One-off fee per evaluation. You pay a fixed amount, scaled to account size, and the desk works the challenge until it passes or fails. Simple to compare, and the provider carries the time risk.

Monthly fee. You pay per month for as long as the desk is working or managing the account. This suits arrangements that continue past the evaluation into the funded account.

Fee plus profit share. A smaller upfront cost, with the provider taking a percentage of profits earned on the funded account. This aligns incentives past the pass, which matters if you want the desk to keep trading.

We use the second and third together: a monthly fee set by account size, plus a commission on profits actually earned. The reasoning is that a desk paid only to pass an evaluation has no stake in what happens the day after, and we would rather be judged on the funded account than on the certificate.

What drives the number

Account size is the main factor, for a reason that is not immediately obvious. A larger account does not take more hours to trade, but it carries more consequence per mistake and demands tighter management. The work is not proportionally larger. The care required is.

Beyond size, the firm's rules matter. A challenge with a trailing drawdown and a consistency requirement is materially harder than one with a static limit and no time pressure, and pricing reflects that.

Working out whether it makes sense

The honest calculation has three inputs, and most people only do the first.

What you have already spent. Add up the evaluation fees you have paid on attempts that failed. For a lot of traders this number is larger than the service fee, and it is money that produced nothing.

What another attempt is likely to cost. Not just the fee. The weeks of screen time, and the opportunity cost of that time, count too.

What happens if it does not work. This is the input people skip. You should assume a realistic chance of the evaluation failing, because that chance exists regardless of who is trading. If a failed attempt would be a genuine financial problem for you, the honest answer is that you should not be buying either the challenge or the service right now.

Our terms, stated plainly

Fees cover the trading work carried out on your behalf. They are not a wager on the outcome, and they are non-refundable once trading has begun. We do not offer a money-back guarantee, because a guarantee would imply we control something we do not.

What you are buying is a better probability, evidenced by a 95% pass rate across supported firms, and a desk that will not gamble your account to hit a target faster. You are not buying certainty. Any provider offering certainty on a trading outcome is telling you something that cannot be true.

Comparing providers sensibly

Ask each one the same four questions and write down the answers:

A provider who answers all four without hedging is worth considering. One who leads with a guarantee and gets vague on the specifics is not.

Our current plans are on the pricing page, priced by account size. If your situation does not fit neatly into one of them, message us on Telegram and we will tell you what it would involve.

A worked comparison

Consider a trader who has already failed two $100,000 evaluations and is deciding what to do next.

Third attempt aloneThird attempt with a desk
Already spent on failed attempts~$1,000~$1,000
New evaluation fee~$500~$500
Service feeNoneMonthly, by account size
Time commitmentWeeks of sessionsNone
Historical pass rateTheir own, twice unsuccessful95% across supported firms

The honest framing is not "the service pays for itself." It is that you are choosing between spending less money on an approach that has not worked twice, and spending more money on an approach with a better record. Both can fail. One has better odds.

Work out your break-even before you commit

A funded $100,000 account returning a modest 3% in a month produces $3,000 gross, of which you keep the majority after the firm's split and any commission. Against that, the monthly fee is a small number.

But run the calculation the other way as well. If the evaluation fails, what have you spent, and does that amount matter to you? If the answer is that it would genuinely hurt, the correct decision is to wait, regardless of how good the odds look.

We would rather tell you that than take the fee.

Costs people forget

Common questions

Why is the fee based on account size?

A larger account does not take more hours, but it carries more consequence per error and demands tighter management. The pricing reflects the care required rather than the time spent.

Do you take a cut of the profits?

On the plans that include managing the funded account, yes, a commission on profits actually earned. That is deliberate. A desk paid only to pass an evaluation has no stake in what happens afterwards.

Can I get a refund if it does not work?

No. Fees cover trading work carried out on your behalf and are non-refundable once trading has begun. We say this plainly rather than offering a guarantee that would be hedged into meaninglessness in the terms.

Is there a cheaper option for a small account?

Our entry plan covers accounts up to $5,000. Below that, the economics rarely work in your favour once fees are accounted for, and we will usually say so.

How do I pay, and when?

Message us on Telegram and we will walk through the current options and timing before you commit to anything. Average response time is around five minutes.