Topstep consistency: 55% in the Trading Combine
Topstep's Trading Combine uses a 55% Consistency Target. Required total profit is max(posted target, best day / 0.55). On the $50k Combine, the posted target is $3,000 and 55% of it is $1,650. The Express Funded Account Consistency payout path has a separate 40% objective; passing the Combine does not establish payout eligibility.
Your account next: use the current Trading Combine preset to explore your win rate and R assumptions. A simulation result is not a payout decision.
The current calculation
Let T be the posted target, B your largest profitable day, and P total profit. The required total is max(T, B / 0.55); remaining profit is max(0, max(T, B / 0.55) - P). Losses reduce the total without erasing the best day.
| Combine size | Posted target | 55% of target |
|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $3,000 | $1,650 |
| $100,000 | $6,000 | $3,300 |
| $150,000 | $9,000 | $4,950 |
The last column is the arithmetic boundary. Topstep recommends staying below these amounts. Its stated 55% limit has no rounding buffer; do not round a percentage down to manufacture eligibility.
A current worked example
A $1,600 best day at $3,000 total is about 53.33%: consistency is satisfied. A $2,200 best day requires $4,000 total. At $3,050 total, that second account needs another $950, assuming a later day does not raise its best day. Other account conditions still apply.
Trading Combine and funded payout are different stages
The XFA Consistency path uses a 40% objective and requires at least three trading days with a trade on each day. Its consistency window resets after a payout request, starting on the following trading day. These are not Trading Combine pass conditions and must not be projected onto every funded account or payout path.
Read the current Topstep payout policy for the account and path you actually hold.
Current questions
What is the current Trading Combine consistency target?
The Trading Combine target is 55%. Required total profit is the larger of the posted target and best-day profit divided by 0.55. There is no additional rounding buffer.
Does a $1,600 best day block a $3,000 total?
No: $1,600 / $3,000 is about 53.33%, below 55%. This satisfies the consistency component; the account must still satisfy its other applicable conditions.
What does a $1,800 best day require?
For a $50k Combine, max($3,000, $1,800 / 0.55) is about $3,272.73. Treat that decimal as displayed arithmetic, not a provider rounding tolerance; Topstep illustrates the target as $3,273.
Is the XFA payout consistency objective also 55%?
No. The XFA Consistency payout path uses 40% and has its own eligibility conditions. It is separate from the Trading Combine and from the XFA Standard path.
Are the 50% examples below current Topstep instructions?
No. They preserve the earlier worked model as an explicitly archived illustration. They must not replace the current 55% Trading Combine calculation. No change effective date is inferred from an article update timestamp.
PropSurvival is independent analytical software and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Topstep. Rule descriptions reflect our verification dated above; firms change rules without notice — the firm's own documentation is always the final authority. Nothing on this page is investment advice, trading advice, or a recommendation to purchase any evaluation program.
Archived 50% worked model — not the current Trading Combine threshold
Historical model context: the following preserved article illustrates the earlier 50% model, including its old daily-loss assumptions. Its diagrams, examples and conclusions are not current-program instructions. Use the 55% answer above for the current Trading Combine; the change's effective date is not established here.
Safe-day ceiling = half the posted target: $1,500 on a $3,000 Combine.
Best day ≤ 50% of total ⇔ real target = max($3,000, 2 × best day). Everything below is the working: why a $1,600 day forces $3,200, what a −$400 day does to a $150 debt, and which single green day clears the block.
Binding constraint — the 2% daily loss limit and the 50% consistency cap, evaluated at pass. Not the trailing floor.Numbers first: posted target $3,000; best day $1,600; real target max($3,000, 2 × $1,600) = $3,200; best-day share at $3,050 total = 52.5% — blocked. That is the whole rule. The scene that produces those numbers: the Combine dashboard shows $3,050 of profit against a $3,000 target, every drawdown rule intact — and no pass. Nothing malfunctioned. Days earlier, on that account's best day, the consistency rule raised the real target by $200. It is the only futures-prop mechanic that can withhold a pass after the posted target is already met. Below: why the fastest start produces the longest race, the $1,500 daily ceiling that cannot engage the rule, and a four-line ledger for a blocked account's debt.
What the rule actually says
At pass time, your best single day must account for no more than 50% of your total profit. One monster day doesn't prove a repeatable edge — that's the firm's reasoning — so the pass is withheld until more profitable days dilute the best day's share to half or below.
Now rearrange it. "Best day ≤ 50% of total" is the same statement as "total ≥ 2 × best day." Combine that with the posted profit target and the entire rule collapses into a single formula:
Your real profit target is not $3,000. It is max($3,000, 2 × best day). The posted target is only the minimum — your best day sets the rest.
Same total, opposite outcomes
Everything surprising about this rule falls out of that one line: why great days extend the evaluation, why there is an exact daily ceiling that cannot engage the rule, and what every kind of day does to an account that's already blocked. Take them in order.
A worked example
- Target: $3,000. You're the trader from the opening — $3,050 in total profit, but $1,600 of it came on one day. Best-day share: 52.5%. No pass.
- Your real target, per the formula:
max($3,000, 2 × $1,600) = $3,200. The rule moved your finish line and told no one. - So you keep trading. The daily loss limit and the EOD trailing drawdown remain fully active during this extension — every extra required day is another chance to breach them.
- Two modest green days later, total profit is $3,420, best-day share 46.8%. Now the pass registers.
That forced extension is exactly what our engine simulates: paths that hit the target with an oversized best day must continue trading to dilute it, and paths that never manage it inside the time window are counted as consistency failures — their own failure category, not "timeout."
The fast-start paradox
Because your real target is 2 × best day once that exceeds $3,000, a great early day doesn't accelerate your Combine — it extends it:
| Your best day | Your real target | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| $1,500 or less | $3,000 | Unchanged — the rule never engages |
| $1,600 | $3,200 | +$200 of forced extension |
| $2,000 | $4,000 | +$1,000 — a third more course to run |
| $2,500 | $5,000 | +$2,000 — two-thirds more |
| $3,000 in one day | $6,000 | The "one-day pass" doubles the course |
Table continues → scroll
Read the last row again: a trader who makes the entire $3,000 target in a single day hasn't nearly passed — they've committed themselves to earning $6,000. Under this rule, the fastest start produces the longest race.
The boundary is exact, and it's sharper than most traders realize. Make $1,600 on each of two days and you sit at precisely 50.0% — allowed. Make $1,601 on the second day and the share ticks to 50.02% — blocked. One dollar less on the second day also blocks you, because the total shrinks faster than the best day. A two-day pass exists only if the two days are equal to the dollar; any asymmetry withholds the pass.
The safe-day ceiling: one number the rule cannot engage
There is an exact daily cap under which the consistency rule can never touch you: half the posted target — $1,500 on a $3,000 Combine. The proof is two lines. At pass time your total is at least $3,000; if no single day exceeds $1,500, then no day exceeds 50% of that total. Done — no scenario, no exception.
This is the engine's Daily Profit Lock input in its purest form: a planned stop-winning point. Toggle it in the simulation and watch the consistency-failure share collapse. Many disciplined Combine plans cap the day lower than $1,500 — but understand what that extra margin is for: it's drawdown and variance discipline, not a consistency requirement. $1,500 is the exact ceiling; everything below it is a choice.
The debt ledger: what every day does to a blocked Combine
Once the rule blocks you, your entire situation compresses into one number — call it the debt: max(target, 2 × best day) − total profit. In the worked example: $3,200 − $3,050 = $150. Every trading day is a transaction against that number, and the ledger accepts only four kinds of entries:
| The day you post | What it does to the debt |
|---|---|
| Green — up to your best day | Pays it down dollar for dollar. The workhorse entry. |
| Green — between one and two times your best | Still pays, at a discount: every dollar above your old best raises the requirement by two. |
| Green — more than twice your best | Grows the debt. The requirement rises faster than the money arrives. |
| Red — any size | Grows the debt dollar for dollar, without touching your best day. |
Table continues → scroll
Why a losing day raises the percentage
The red-day entry is the one traders find most counterintuitive. The requirement is set by your best day alone, so a losing day doesn't move the finish line — it moves you away from it. Take a −$400 day from the worked example's position: the debt grows from $150 to $550, and the dashboard's consistency percentage deteriorates from 52.5% to 60.4% on a day when your best day never changed. Share = best ÷ total — shrink the denominator and the ratio climbs on its own.
The ledger also answers the question every blocked trader asks: can one good day finish this? Yes, and the window is exact — a single green day clears the block if and only if it is at least what you owe and no more than everything you've made so far. Here: any day from $150 to $3,050. A wide window, with a trap at each end — and the traps are precisely the two behaviors a forced extension pressures you toward. Pressing after losses feeds the red-day entry; swinging for one heroic finish feeds the monster-day entry. Under this rule there are no neutral sessions: every day either pays the debt or grows it.
The rule that binds is not always the rule you watch
Traders preparing for a Combine tend to study the trailing floor. But a floor can only end an account that reaches it, and two other rules stand in front of it: the 2% daily loss limit, which can end a session, and the 50% consistency rule, which can withhold a pass. Where those bind first, the floor's behaviour is not what decides the outcome — it never gets a turn. Which rule binds for you depends on your statistics, not on the label on the marketing page.
The daily limit's arithmetic needs no simulation at all — it is division, and you can do it before you pay:
| Risk per trade | Full-size losses to reach the 2% daily limit | What that leaves |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5% | 4 | Four losers before the session closes itself |
| 1.0% | 2 | Two losers — a normal sequence for a 52% strategy |
| 1.5% | 1.3 | One loser, and most of a second |
| 2.0% | 1 | One loser ends the day |
Table continues → scroll
This table is arithmetic on Topstep's published 2% daily loss limit — 2% ÷ risk per trade — not a simulation output. It cannot be wrong unless the posted rule is. The engine computes what it costs you; that part depends on your statistics and we do not publish it for anyone.
Two losses, and the day is over
Read the middle row again. At 1% risk per trade a 2% daily loss limit is two full-size losses — your day can end before your edge has any chance to express itself. A 52%-win-rate strategy produces two consecutive losers roughly a quarter of the time it produces two trades. That is not a strategy problem; it is a sizing-against-the-rule problem, and it is visible in the division above without any model at all.
Why this matters for your fee: traders whose style produces occasional outsized days — news traders, big-size scalpers — can show a high raw target-hit rate and still have a materially lower true pass probability under the consistency mechanic. The gap is invisible in any calculator that just checks "did equity reach the target."
Why the rule exists. The firm's stated logic is statistical, and it's defensible: one outsized day is indistinguishable from luck; several comparable days look like a repeatable process — roughly what any capital allocator wants to see before writing a check. But the mechanism has a second, less advertised effect: it extends time-in-market for exactly the traders it flags, and every extension day carries live breach risk. Both things are true at once. Our job isn't to referee that trade-off — it's to make sure you've priced it before you pay for the attempt.
What changes the odds under this rule
Each item below is a property of the rule's algebra, not a recommendation. They are all derived from the posted rule and hold whether or not any simulation is correct; what any of them is worth for a given trader is a number the engine computes from that trader's own statistics.
- The safe-day ceiling. Half the posted target — $1,500 on a $3,000 Combine — is the exact threshold below which the consistency rule cannot engage. If no day exceeds it, then at pass time no day can exceed 50% of the total. The engine's Daily Profit Lock models this behaviour.
- Risk per trade against the daily limit. The daily limit is denominated in your losses, not in dollars: at 1% risk it is two of them, at 0.5% it is four. Halving risk per trade doubles the number of losers a session can absorb before it closes itself. That is division, not a model output.
- Calendar as a budgeted resource. The target is a midpoint rather than a finish line: consistency extensions and minimum trading days both add sessions, and every added session carries live loss-rule risk. Time in an evaluation is exposure, not progress.
- Uniform days versus heroic ones. Eight days of $400 clears the rule at a 12.5% best-day share. Two days of $1,600 sits exactly on the 50% line, where a single dollar of asymmetry withholds the pass. Identical total, opposite outcomes — this is the fast-start paradox stated in one line.
- The debt, for an account already blocked.
max(target, 2 × best) − totalis the dollar figure that clears the block; the dashboard's share percentage is a ratio of the same facts that moves slowly and reads as though little is happening. The two are equivalent; the dollar figure is the one that can be planned against.
Every item above is the p = 0.50 case of one identity. The general form: required total = best day ÷ limit, for any limit — with a calculator that takes your own best day and total.
Questions traders actually ask
Does hitting the profit target pass the Combine?
Not by itself. Your real requirement is the larger of the posted target and twice your best day. If your best day exceeds half of total profit at target-hit, you keep trading — with all loss rules live — until dilution brings it to 50% or below. Run your own numbers in the free calculator.
What's the largest day that can never block a pass?
Half the posted target — $1,500 on a $3,000 Combine. If no day exceeds that, then at pass time (total ≥ target) no day can exceed 50% of the total. It's the one hard number in this rule that works entirely in your favor.
Do losing days affect the consistency calculation?
They don't change the requirement — that's set by your best day — but they shrink your total, so your best day's share rises and you drift further from compliance while the clock and the drawdown rules keep running.
Can one green day un-block a Combine?
Yes — exactly when it's at least your remaining debt (max(target, 2 × best) − total) and no more than your total profit so far. Below that window the day leaves you short; above it, the day itself becomes the new best and moves the requirement out of reach again.
Does a big day early hurt more than a big day late?
The formula doesn't care about order — 2 × best day is the requirement whenever it happens. But a big day late, near target-hit, often means the extension happens immediately at the finish line, which is where traders feel it most. The algebra is the same either way: a day that stays at or below half the posted target cannot become the new best that moves the finish line.
The archived example uses a 50% model. The current simulator link above uses the current corpus and does not reproduce that archived threshold.
Companion read: the other mechanism that ends evaluations traders thought they were winning — Apex's intraday trailing drawdown, explained and measured.
The mechanic, quantified: this page describes Topstep's clause; it does not simulate it. What a 50% best-day cap costs the probability of passing an evaluation — measured with a seeded, reproducible Monte Carlo study of a synthetic trader, first-party and openly licensed — is the subject of what a consistency rule costs. It quantifies the shape of the tax in general; it names no firm and ranks none.