Apex Trader Funding — EA — Verification Record

Confirmed unchanged

looked 2026-10-15 · found

Dated source-check records

• 2026-09-13 Documented absent

  Intraday Trailing Drawdown Evaluation (EA) · First party single pass

  USD 100,000 · USD 150,000 · USD 25,000 · USD 50,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

  Field-by-field: 1 noted (1 field touched this pass).

  PKG-E payout/reset-fee provenance backfill. Apex's current one-time-fee ("4.0") evaluation plans have no reset product (must buy a new evaluation); a discontinued legacy subscription plan's $80/$100 reset does not apply to this pricing.model. Left null with a documented omission.

  pricing reset price after breach: documented-absent

  No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

  Sources recorded for this check:
  https://apextraderfunding.com/help-center/billing/evaluation-plan-fees-and-access-explained/

  Link to this check
• 2026-09-13 Documented absent

  Intraday Trailing Drawdown Evaluation (EA) · First party single pass

  USD 100,000 · USD 150,000 · USD 25,000 · USD 50,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

  Field-by-field: 1 noted (1 field touched this pass).

  trader-relations review CONCERNS: the prior PKG-E note asserted "no reset product" on the current one-time 4.0 plan but admitted the live page returned Cloudflare 403 and the claim rested only on search-engine extractions -- the same unverified-source class already corrected on Phidias. The live page and an r.jina.ai proxy fetch both still 403 this pass, so this session instead retrieved Apex's own page via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (snapshot captured 2026-07-13, well after the 2026-03-01 "4.0" relaunch this record models) -- a genuine first-party read, not a summary. It verbatim-confirms both the general explanation ("There are no reset options, and you would need to purchase a new Evaluation to try again") and the page's own FAQ ("Are there reset fees? There are no reset fees."). The field remains correctly documented-absent; the note and sources now cite the actual verified text and the archived URL used to read it.

  pricing reset price after breach: documented-absent (re-verified via a genuine first-party archived read, not a search extraction)

  No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

  Sources recorded for this check:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20260713022109/https://apextraderfunding.com/help-center/billing/evaluation-plan-fees-and-access-explained/
  https://apextraderfunding.com/help-center/billing/evaluation-plan-fees-and-access-explained/

  Link to this check
• 2026-07-22 Confirmed · sources disagree on 4 field(s)

  Intraday Trailing Drawdown Evaluation (EA) · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value

  USD 100,000 · USD 150,000 · USD 25,000 · USD 50,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification

  Field-by-field: 5 confirmed · 4 preserved for the record · 1 noted (10 fields touched this pass).

  Both passes reached the site only via r.jina.ai (apextraderfunding.com 403s from TR). NOTE: support.apextraderfunding.com is now DEAD (404) - the help centre moved to apextraderfunding.com/help-center/, so provenance URLs on that old host are stale. CONFIRMED: target $1.5k/$3k/$6k/$9k (=6% every size), NO daily loss limit on this intraday variant (stated twice first-party), max drawdown $1k/$2k/$3k/$4k (=4%/4%/3%/2.667%) - our per-size ladder reconciles exactly - trailing in real time off peak equity INCLUDING unrealized. STRUCTURAL FINDING both passes agree on: Apex relaunched 2026-03-01; evaluations are now ONE-TIME purchases, not monthly subscriptions, and the prior line is "legacy" still on recurring billing. DISAGREE (NOT entered): (a) max_drawdown.locks is PLATFORM-DEPENDENT - Rithmic/Wealthcharts lock the threshold at profit-target balance, Tradovate never locks; our corpus models only the never-lock branch. (b) consistency - help centre says "Not Applied" in evaluation while the site product JSON carries consistency_rule_percentage:30; both passes found this independently. (c) min_trading_days: pass A read "Min. Days To Pass 1", pass B read "no minimum". (d) max_days: pass B read an explicit 30-calendar-day access window, pass A read a statement implying none. Per the two-reader doctrine none of these are arbitrated.

  consistency: disagree daily loss amount pct: confirmed max days: disagree max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown locks: disagree max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: disagree profit target pct: confirmed pricing initial fee: change_available

  No prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.

  Sources recorded for this check:
  https://apextraderfunding.com/help-center/intraday-trailing-drawdown-accounts/intraday-trailing-drawdown-explained/
  https://apextraderfunding.com/help-center/additional-helpful-items/daily-loss-limit-explained/
  https://apextraderfunding.com/

  Link to this check

What the rules say now