PFC Research / 2026 industry report
Prop Firm Statistics 2026: 160 Programmes Analysed
An original, data-led snapshot of how retail prop firm programmes are structured: challenge models, listed entry fees, trading platforms, drawdown limits and first-payout terms. Built from Prop Firms Compare’s own programme database.
What do the numbers actually say about prop firms in 2026? PFC analysed 160 currently listed programmes across 23 active firms, alongside 801 account configurations and the associated evaluation and funded-stage rules. The result is a structured view of what firms offer—not an estimate of their revenue, the number of active traders, or how many people pass challenges.
This report is a sample of firms covered by Prop Firms Compare, not a census of every prop firm worldwide. Programme counts are not weighted equally by firm; firms offering more variants appear more often in programme-level figures. Every key statistic below includes its data population so journalists can cite the figures accurately.
Six findings worth knowing
The headline results from the 21 October 2026 database snapshot
77 of 160 tracked programmes use a one-step evaluation model.
38 of 160 active programmes use the instant model.
MetaTrader 5 is listed on 122 of 160 active programmes.
109 USD-priced account configurations; some fees are only upfront instalments.
Median of 156 funded-phase profit split records.
145 programmes with the first-payout field populated; not actual transfer speed.
Nearly half of the 160 prop firm programmes tracked by Prop Firms Compare in October 2026 use a one-step evaluation model (77 programmes, 48.1%).
Source: Prop Firms Compare, Prop Firm Statistics 2026, dataset snapshot 21 October 2026
One-step challenges lead the tracked programme mix
All 160 active programmes, classified using their database evaluation model
One-step evaluations account for 77 of 160 programmes (48.1%). Instant funding follows at 38 (23.8%), just ahead of the 36 two-step programmes (22.5%). A smaller number use three-step or subscription structures.
Shares sum to 100%. Programme models are mutually exclusive in this dataset.
Firm-level availability tells a different story
22 of the 23 firms in the sample list at least one one-step programme; 15 of 23 list at least one instant programme. These numbers count each firm only once, regardless of the number of variants it sells.
That distinction matters: a firm with 15 programme variants should not be mistaken for 15 separate companies.
MetaTrader 5 is the most widely listed platform
Platform availability at programme level; a programme may support several platforms
MT5 is listed on 122 of the 160 programmes (76.3%). cTrader and Match-Trader each appear on 70 (43.8%), while TradeLocker is listed on 56 (35.0%). The platform field mixes simple slugs and structured objects, which were normalised before counting.
A single programme can appear in multiple bars. The percentages therefore do not sum to 100%.
Scope: These are platform listings held in PFC’s programme records, not independently tested login availability or trading volume. For a specific firm’s live account options, confirm its current official rules.
What do prop firm challenges cost?
Recorded fees in USD, grouped by nominal account size
The median listed fee for a $100,000 account configuration is $484 among 109 positive-fee USD records. For $50,000 accounts, the equivalent median is $265 across 111 records.
| Account size | Count | Median fee |
|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | 73 | $84 |
| $25,000 | 91 | $177 |
| $50,000 | 111 | $265 |
| $100,000 | 109 | $484 |
| $200,000 | 48 | $934.50 |
Sample includes active account configurations with a positive numeric fee and fee_currency = USD. EUR-priced and missing-fee entries are not converted or imputed. Each account configuration counts once.
$100K listed fees by evaluation model
| Model | Count | Median fee |
|---|---|---|
| One-step | 59 | $398 |
| Two-step | 27 | $499 |
| Instant | 20 | $658.50 |
| Three-step | 3 | $299 |
The sampled instant-model accounts have a higher median listed fee than one-step accounts ($658.50 versus $398), but that is not a matched-product comparison. Rules, payout arrangements, currencies, discounting, subscriptions and staged payments can differ. The three-step sample (n=3) is too small for a reliable general benchmark.
Pricing warning: Some programmes record a small upfront fee for “pay later”, “pay after pass” or subscription structures while the rest is billed later, or monthly. Therefore these are medians of the recorded fee field, not verified total costs of qualification or funding. Activation fees, recurring charges, resets and eligible discounts are not added to this calculation. Use the programme comparison tool and official payment terms before deciding what an account will cost in total.
Which account sizes appear most often?
Of the 801 active configurations, 132 are nominally $100K accounts (16.5%) and 131 are $50K accounts (16.4%). These are listing frequencies, not sales volumes or evidence of customer popularity.
Drawdown and evaluation rules: the typical figures
First evaluation phase per programme, with separate denominators for each populated field
For programmes with a first evaluation phase, the median recorded profit target is 8%, the median daily loss limit is 4%, and the median maximum loss limit is 7.5%. These are medians of independently populated fields, not necessarily the complete rule set of one typical programme.
Median across 102 populated first-evaluation phases.
Median across 80 populated first-evaluation phases.
Median across 92 populated first-evaluation phases.
There are 119 programmes with at least one evaluation phase in the sample. In their first evaluation phases, 50 rows have a stored minimum trading-day value of zero (42.0%). Because zero is also the database default for this field, PFC does not assume that every such record represents an explicitly advertised “no minimum trading days” policy.
A 7.5% loss limit does not always mean 7.5% usable risk. Static, trailing end-of-day and intraday trailing drawdown methodologies behave differently. Percentage values alone do not capture how quickly the permitted equity cushion can shrink.
Funded profit splits and first-payout eligibility
First funded phase per programme; advertised programme terms, not observed transfers
The median recorded funded-stage profit split is 80% across 156 programmes with a funded phase. Of those, 128 (82.1%) have a split of at least 80%, while 37 (23.7%) list at least 90% at this phase. Four list a 100% split.
156 first funded-stage records.
128 of 156 funded-stage records.
61 of 145 populated first-payout records.
For the 145 first funded-phase records with a populated first_payout_days field, the median is 14 days. The 61 programmes at seven days or less include entries marked zero days; this may reflect an on-demand eligibility policy but does not demonstrate that a payout was processed immediately.
What this data cannot establish: real payout success rates, median time for an actual bank transfer, trader earnings, the likelihood of passing an assessment or the probability a firm remains solvent. Those outcomes require independently observed event-level data.
25 prop firm statistics — a citable fact sheet
Exact figures, denominators and field definitions for journalists and researchers
Use the exact scope shown in the final column when quoting a statistic. Each result is an aggregation of PFC’s tracked records, not a universal claim about the entire prop trading industry.
| # | Statistic | Figure | Denominator / definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Active firms tracked | 23 active firms | Firm rows with status=active |
| 02 | Active programmes analysed | 160 active programmes | Active programmes belonging to active firms |
| 03 | Active account configurations | 801 account rows | Active, currently effective accounts within the tracked programmes |
| 04 | Programmes using a one-step model | 77 of 160 | Programme evaluation_model = one_step |
| 05 | Programmes using a two-step model | 36 of 160 | Programme evaluation_model = two_step |
| 06 | Programmes using an instant model | 38 of 160 | Programme evaluation_model = instant |
| 07 | Firms with at least one one-step programme | 22 of 23 | Distinct firms, not programme-weighted |
| 08 | Firms with at least one instant programme | 15 of 23 | Distinct firms, not programme-weighted |
| 09 | Programmes with scaling marked available | 124 of 152 known | 8 programmes have an unknown/null scaling flag |
| 10 | Programmes listing MetaTrader 5 | 122 of 160 | Normalised platform slugs; multi-platform programmes counted once |
| 11 | Programmes listing cTrader | 70 of 160 | Normalised platform slugs |
| 12 | Programmes listing TradeLocker | 56 of 160 | Normalised platform slugs |
| 13 | Account configurations sized at $100K | 132 of 801 | Account size = 100000 USD nominal funding allocation |
| 14 | Median listed fee for a $100K account | 109 priced configurations | Positive fees recorded in USD; not necessarily full lifecycle cost |
| 15 | Median listed fee for a $50K account | 111 priced configurations | Positive fees recorded in USD; not necessarily full lifecycle cost |
| 16 | Median $100K one-step listed fee | 59 priced configurations | USD positive-fee accounts classified one_step |
| 17 | Median $100K instant listed fee | 20 priced configurations | USD positive-fee accounts classified instant |
| 18 | Median first evaluation profit target | 102 populated phases | First evaluation phase per eligible programme |
| 19 | Median first evaluation daily loss limit | 80 populated phases | First evaluation phase; percentage-valued fields only |
| 20 | Median first evaluation maximum loss limit | 92 populated phases | First evaluation phase; percentage-valued fields only |
| 21 | First evaluation phases recording zero minimum trading days | 50 of 119 | Zero is the stored value and may not establish an explicit no-minimum policy |
| 22 | Median funded-phase profit split | 156 funded programmes | First funded phase per programme |
| 23 | Funded-phase splits at or above 80% | 128 of 156 | First funded phase per programme |
| 24 | Median recorded first-payout eligibility | 145 populated funded phases | Published eligibility field; not a measured payment-processing time |
| 25 | Funded phases with first-payout eligibility ≤7 days | 61 of 145 | Includes zero-day entries; not evidence that a payout happened |
Percentages are rounded to one decimal place; medians are calculated from non-null numeric fields. Figures are frozen to the data snapshot of 21 October 2026 and may differ from live site listings after further database updates.
Research methodology and limitations
Reproducible field definitions and an explicit freshness disclosure
What we counted
- Snapshot: Database values queried on 21 October 2026 (UTC date), not a rolling or extrapolated annual average.
- Firm sample: 23 records in PFC’s
firmstable withstatus = active. Only active programmes attached to those firms were included. - Programmes: 160 rows with
programmes.is_active = true; one unique firm/programme combination per observation. The mix is not market-share-weighted. - Account configurations: 801 rows with
accounts.is_active = true, a linked active programme, and no effective-date expiry before the snapshot; no future-effective accounts were present. These span 155 of the 160 programmes. An account configuration is not a trader or a purchased challenge. - Model categories: Taken from
programmes.evaluation_model. Firms may offer more than one model; per-firm availability uses distinct firm counts. - Platforms: Slugs extracted from
programmes.platforms, accommodating both arrays of strings and arrays of structured objects. Aliases such asmatchtraderandmatch-traderwere combined. Each programme counts once per platform. - Prices: Numeric positive
accounts.feevalues in USD, analysed within account-size and model groups. Missing values and EUR-denominated fees were excluded rather than converted. Separate activation, recurring and reset fees were not included. - Trading rules: The earliest phase with
phase_type = evaluationper programme, sorted byphase_order. Medians use only populated percentage fields. Account-specific JSON overrides are not included in these base-phase aggregates. - Payout terms: The earliest phase with
phase_type = fundedper programme.profit_split_pctandfirst_payout_daysrepresent terms in PFC records, not independently verified payouts to traders. - Calculations: Medians are the 50th percentile of recorded numeric observations; percentages equal numerator ÷ the displayed eligible denominator. Values are rounded only for publication.
Freshness disclosure: The database snapshot is dated 21 October, but this does not mean every firm or programme was re-verified that day. Programme last_verified_at dates in the included sample range from 8 September to 17 October 2026; 29 of 160 programme records have a verification date within 30 days of the snapshot. Terms may have changed since their individual checks. PFC should re-check older records before presenting this page as an up-to-date market benchmark.
Illustrative primary-source documentation
PFC stores 475 source records associated with firms, programmes and rules, including first-party help centre and pricing references and some secondary materials. The links below are examples of firm-published documentation represented in the research records; they are not a complete claim-by-claim audit trail for the aggregates above.
- FTMO · Instant AccountOfficial product announcement
- FundingPips · 2 Step FlexOfficial programme help page
- Tradeify · Lightning fundedOfficial funded rules
- Apex Trader Funding · Evaluation pricingOfficial billing explanation
- Topstep · Product informationOfficial programme information
- AquaFunded · Instant Funding ProOfficial help centre
PFC is an affiliate-funded comparison website. Affiliate arrangements do not change the database aggregation formulas, but data coverage, programme inclusion and the completeness of fields remain important limitations. This report is informational and is not trading or investment advice.
How to cite this research
Free attribution for journalists, bloggers and education publishers
You are welcome to quote individual statistics or reference the charts with attribution. Please include the sample scope and snapshot date, and link to the canonical report so readers can review the definitions and limitations.
Source: Prop Firms Compare, “Prop Firm Statistics 2026: 160 Programmes Analysed” (data snapshot: 21 October 2026), https://propfirmscompare.com/research/prop-firm-industry-statistics/If you need a firm-level breakout, a definition or a correction, reference the specific finding and use the site’s contact page. Do not present this sample as the total worldwide number of prop firms.
Prop firm statistics: frequently asked questions
Short answers based on the actual PFC dataset
How many prop firms are there in 2026?
This study covers 23 active firms in PFC’s own database as at 21 October 2026. It does not count every prop firm globally, so 23 must not be quoted as the worldwide industry total.
What is the most common type of prop firm challenge?
Among the 160 active programmes analysed, one-step evaluations are the largest category: 77 programmes, or 48.1%. Two-step models account for 36 programmes and instant models for 38.
How much does a $100K prop firm challenge cost?
Among 109 active $100K account configurations with a positive recorded fee in USD, the median listed fee is $484. This is not necessarily the full cost: activation, pay-later balances, subscriptions, resets and discounts can change the total.
What is the typical prop firm profit split?
The median funded-phase profit split in this sample is 80% across 156 programme records. A profit split is a contractual rate, not a measure of trader profitability or actual payout success.
How quickly can prop firm traders receive a first payout?
The median recorded first-payout eligibility is 14 days among 145 populated funded-phase records. This does not measure actual withdrawal processing time, nor does it show what percentage of traders ever receive a payout.
What percentage of traders pass prop firm challenges?
Our programme database does not contain a verified population of purchased challenges and individual trader outcomes. For that reason, this report does not publish an unsupported industry-wide challenge pass rate.