Static vs trailing drawdown: 3 of 8 rule sets have a moving floor (2 EOD · 1 intraday · 5 static) — isolating the mechanic across 8 real prop firm rule sets
Across this first-party mechanic study of 8 real prop firm rule sets — holding one trader profile constant (52% win rate, 1.6R avg win, 1R avg loss, 4 trades/day, 1% risk, 0.05R cost) and comparing each to its own static-floor counterfactual at 20,000 paths per cell (seed 12345) — 3 of 8 rule sets have a floor that moves (2 end-of-day trailing, 1 intraday); the other 5 use a static floor. Where the trailing floor is binding, swapping it for a static one changes the outcome; where a daily loss limit or consistency rule binds first, swapping the floor changes nothing. No per-firm pass rates. Free path: /app?src=research-static-vs-trailing.
Three of eight rule sets have a floor that moves. Free calculators model the other five.
And the floor is not always what binds. Where a daily loss limit or a consistency requirement ends the evaluation first, swapping that floor for a static one changes nothing at all.
Free prop-firm calculators overwhelmingly simulate a static drawdown floor. Many of the most popular evaluations — Apex, Topstep, MyFundedFutures — don't use one. This study holds one realistic trader profile constant and simulates it against eight real rule sets, then re-simulates each firm with only the drawdown mechanism swapped to static. The difference between those two numbers is the price of the trailing rule itself — isolated from every other variable.
Key findings
Where the trailing floor is the binding rule, swapping it for a static one changes the outcome. The subject here is the mechanic, not any firm. An intraday trailing floor ratchets on unrealized equity peaks; an end-of-day trailing floor ratchets only on closes; a static floor never moves. Hold the trader and every other rule constant, change only the floor, and the difference is attributable to the floor alone. The size of that difference depends on the trader — the engine computes yours.
Trailing is not always the binding rule. Where a daily loss limit or a consistency requirement eliminates or blocks paths before the floor is ever reached, replacing the floor with a static one changes nothing — the floor was never what ended the evaluation. The drawdown label in the marketing copy does not tell you which rule binds for you.
The rule set changes the optimal risk size. Position size and rule set are not independent choices. Under a tight daily limit combined with a trailing floor, reducing risk per trade moves ruin probability far more than it does under a static floor with a loose daily limit — the same trader, the same edge, a different sizing answer. Which is why the sizing recommendation has to be computed from your statistics rather than read off a table.
Table 1 — Which mechanic each rule set uses
Eight published rule sets. How many have a floor that moves?
Three. Five never move at all — and those five are what a free static-floor calculator models correctly.
One cell per rule set, eight in all, grouped by mechanic and in the order of Table 1 within each group. The rule at the top is the width all eight occupy in one row, so each row's length is its share of the eight. Archetype read from each firm's own published drawdown clause · rules verified 2026-07 · no pass rates.
Reference profile for every run on this page: 52% win rate · 1.6R avg win · 1R avg loss · 4 trades/day (Poisson) · 1.0% risk per trade · 0.05R cost. Each rule set is simulated under its published rules (target, daily and total drawdown, min/max days, freeze, consistency), then under a static-floor counterfactual that changes only the drawdown mode. Two-step programs compose funded probability as phase-1 × phase-2, a phase-2 failure meaning a full paid restart.
The table below is a statement about published documents: which drawdown mechanic each rule set uses, and where that is recorded. It is not a ranking, and it carries no pass rates — see the note beneath it.
| Firm · program | Drawdown rule, as published | Mechanic archetype |
|---|---|---|
| Firm · programFTMO · 2-Stepyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedstatic 10% | Mechanic archetypeStatic floor — never moves |
| Firm · programFTMO Swing · 2-Stepyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedstatic 10% | Mechanic archetypeStatic floor — never moves |
| Firm · programFundedNext · Stellar 2-Stepyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedstatic 10% | Mechanic archetypeStatic floor — never moves |
| Firm · programApex · Futures Evalyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedtrail intraday 4%/3%/2.67% by size, freeze unresolved | Mechanic archetypeIntraday trailing — ratchets on unrealized peaks |
| Firm · programTopstep · Combineyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedtrail EOD 4% + freeze, daily 2%, consistency 50% | Mechanic archetypeEOD trailing — ratchets on closes |
| Firm · programFunding Pips · 2-Stepyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedstatic 10% | Mechanic archetypeStatic floor — never moves |
| Firm · programThe5ers · High Stakesyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedstatic 10% | Mechanic archetypeStatic floor — never moves |
| Firm · programMyFundedFutures · Builderyour stats → | Drawdown rule, as publishedtrail EOD 4% + freeze | Mechanic archetypeEOD trailing — ratchets on closes |
Table continues → scroll horizontally
Percentages are transcribed per account size, never interpolated between sizes. The Apex ladder reads 4% at $25K and $50K, 3% at $100K, 2.67% at $150K. "Freeze unresolved" means the firm's own documentation does not settle whether the floor stops trailing inside an evaluation; the engine takes the conservative branch and keeps it trailing — both readings, set out in full.
Why there are no pass rates in this table. A firm's drawdown rule is a fact about a document the firm publishes, and we cite it. A pass rate is our claim about that firm's business, and we will not publish one — however it was computed. The mechanic is the subject; the firm is a configuration of it. Every rule set above deep-links to the free engine, which computes your probability from your statistics, locally, and tells no one.
A static-floor rule set is its own counterfactual. Swapping a static floor for a static floor changes nothing by construction, so those rows are controls: they isolate how much of any difference is attributable to the floor mechanic rather than to the rest of the rule set. That is what makes the comparison a mechanic experiment instead of a league table.
Table 2 — Same rules, different risk size: the interaction that matters most
How risk per trade interacts with three rule archetypes, all other stats held at the reference profile:
| Mechanic archetype | How risk size interacts with it |
|---|---|
| Mechanic archetypeStatic floor, loose daily limit | How risk size interacts with itElimination requires cumulative loss to reach a fixed line. Raising risk per trade raises ruin, but the floor never moves toward you, so the degradation is gradual. |
| Mechanic archetypeEOD trailing floor + tight daily limit | How risk size interacts with itTwo constraints bind at once. The daily limit caps a single session while the floor ratchets up behind every profitable close, so the survivable-loss budget shrinks from both directions as risk grows. |
| Mechanic archetypeIntraday trailing floor | How risk size interacts with itThe floor moves on unrealized peaks, so a spike you never banked permanently reduces your room. Larger positions produce larger unrealized swings, which raises the floor faster — risk size feeds the mechanic that eliminates you. |
Table continues → scroll horizontally
The direction of every row above follows from the rule text alone and does not depend on our engine being right. The magnitude does depend on the trader, which is why this table gives none: risk size and rule set are not independent inputs — they are one joint decision, and the only honest way to see yours is to run your own statistics.
Methodology — everything needed to reproduce this
- Engine PropSurvival Quant Decision Engine v1.0 — the same
runPropAtRiskMonte Carlo that powers the free in-browser tool (then v1.0; the live engine is now v1.2 · build v8.1), executed unmodified. Per-path, trade-by-trade, day-by-day evaluation of daily loss, total drawdown (static / EOD-trailing / intraday-trailing, with freeze-at-initial), time windows, and consistency at pass. - Determinism Seeded PRNG (mulberry32, seed 12345), re-seeded identically before every cell so all regimes see the same random stream. Rerunning the study yields these exact numbers. 20,000 paths per cell; trade counts Poisson-distributed.
- Counterfactual definition Identical rule object with
ddMode → staticand freeze off; daily limit, consistency, targets and time windows unchanged. This is the same isolation the in-app Rule Impact analysis performs after each run. - Two-step composition funded = P(phase 1) × P(phase 2), phase 2 simulated under its own target and window with the firm's drawdown rules — the conservative reading (a phase-2 failure restarts at a fresh fee).
- Rule sources The 8 presets as verified 2026-07 and dated in the public verification log; modeling simplifications (e.g. unlimited evaluation periods modeled as 60 trading days) are disclosed per-preset in the engine, as is every field a firm's own documentation leaves unresolved.
- Limitations One profile cannot represent all traders — gaps grow with risk size and trade frequency and shrink toward zero for low-volatility styles. That is precisely why the engine is free: run your own statistics rather than trusting any fixed table, including this one.
Data license: CC BY 4.0 — reproduce the tables freely with attribution to PropSurvival and a link to this page. The full dataset — profile, methodology, both tables — is published as machine-readable JSON: research-static-vs-trailing-data.json.
These are our trader's odds. Compute yours.
Type your win rate, average R and risk size — or import your trade CSV — and get your pass probability, dominant failure cause, expected attempts and fee spend under each firm's real rules. Free, no signup, computed entirely in your browser.
Run free path — 3 of 8 rule sets have a moving floor (2 EOD · 1 intraday · 5 static) →Nothing you enter leaves your device — methodology. Firm-specific mechanics explained: Apex trailing drawdown · Topstep consistency rule. Prefer to see it? Scroll the interactive tour.
PropSurvival is independent analytical software and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any firm named above. Rule descriptions reflect our verification dated above; firms change rules without notice — each firm's own documentation is always the final authority. Pass probabilities are model outputs for a stated profile, not predictions or guarantees. Nothing here is investment advice.