Leeloo Trading — Verification Record
This is the complete, dated record of every independent verification pass this corpus has run against Leeloo Trading's own published rules, beyond the initial read: what was checked, what the check found, what changed, and what was preserved for the record even where two readings disagreed. See how a number gets checked twice for the method behind every entry below.
- 2026-09-13 Partial
First party single pass
Field-by-field: 2 noted (2 fields touched this pass).
PKG-E payout/reset-fee provenance backfill, corrected 2026-09-13 after a trader-relations review flagged two errors in the same-day backfill: (1) pricing reset price after breach was marked documented-absent although Leeloo's own homepage states a flat $85 reset fee for every Foundation size -- now confirmed and populated. (2) the payout payout cycle (days) omission note scoped "payout eligibility" to the unfunded Practice Account and cited an unsupported "5 winning traded days" figure -- payouts apply only after funding (the Performance Account), and Leeloo's own payout-guidelines article states traded-day requirements vary by account type and must be confirmed with Support, so payout cycle (days) correctly stays null under a corrected, properly-sourced note.
- 2026-09-13 Documented-absent
First party single pass
Field-by-field: 1 noted (1 field touched this pass).
trader-relations review CONCERNS: the note referred to a "Performance Account payout-guidelines article" as if it were a source distinct from the cited kb/a21 overview URL -- a source url/note mismatch class already corrected on FundingPips in this batch. Re-fetched the cited page directly this pass and confirmed the quoted traded-day and last-Saturday-window text is not on a different page at all: it is this same Article 21's own "Payout Request Guidelines" section, further down the same page. Reworded the note to say so explicitly instead of implying a second, uncited article. payout cycle (days) remains correctly documented-absent (a monthly submission window and variable per-account-type traded-day count, not a fixed interval).
Sources consulted: https://support.leelootrading.com/kb/a21/1_-i-qualified-whats-next-leeloo-performance-account-overview.aspx — checked 2026-09-13 - 2026-07-30 Confirmed, items preserved for the record
Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
Field-by-field: 4 confirmed · 3 preserved for the record · 4 noted (11 fields touched this pass).
Merged from two independent blind first-party reads of Leeloo Trading's Foundation (LL / "Leeloo Legacy") Practice Account line, Aspire tier ($25,000). AGREE: profit target $1,500, trailing max drawdown $1,500 (a44: "NEVER stop trailing the highest UNREALIZED profit point... throughout the ENTIRE Practice Account" — floor tracks the highest intraday OPEN/unrealized equity, not closed balance, and never locks during the Practice Account, only post-funding on the "Investor" Performance Account at Initial Balance + $100), NO daily loss limit at any size ("No Daily Drawdown", homepage feature list; corroborated independently by reader A from a second page, https://www leelootrading com/miles-test), a 30% consistency/best-day rule that both readers scope explicitly to the FUNDED Performance Account stage as a payout-eligibility gate only (not a Practice Account qualification rule — same structural pattern already found and resolved for Tradeify's Growth product in this corpus), and 10 minimum trading days. DISAGREE, RESOLVED (see ambiguities[]): whether the firm's own page states profit target/maximum drawdown amount (%) as an explicit percentage (reader B: yes, 6%/6%) or only as a dollar figure (reader A). Resolved by computing the percentage from the undisputed dollar figures, which matches reader B's number exactly. DISAGREE, NOT ENTERED (citation-only, not substantive — both readers describe identical mechanics and dollar figures, differing only in which exact phrase/page they quoted): quotation-mark styling on the profit-target/drawdown dollar quotes; which of two pages (homepage vs. https://www leelootrading com/miles-test) was cited for the daily-loss absence; which of two pages (homepage vs. https://support leelootrading com/kb/a44/rising-trailing-max-drawdown-explained aspx) was cited for the drawdown dollar figure vs. its mechanic; wording of the maximum drawdown anchor/locks/consistency descriptions (same fact, different sentences). NOT MODELED in this schema, recorded here only: a real recurring-monthly pricing structure ladder across the six Foundation sizes ($250/$280/$320/$405/$725/$850 per month at Aspire/Launch/Climb/Cruise/Burst/Explode respectively — reader B), an $85 reset fee for a failed/breached Practice Account ("This account is eligible for a reset $85" — reader B), and a separate funded-stage Performance Account fee once qualified ("$88 per month per Performance Account" or a "$250 one-time fee" alternative — reader B). Per this corpus's established convention for subscription-model firms (see,,), these dollar figures are not written into pricing{} — only documented here — because this schema's pricing fields are not populated for subscription-model evaluations elsewhere in the corpus either.
See Leeloo Trading's rules against your own numbers
The free simulator applies Leeloo Trading's full published rule set — the same rules this page's checks were run against — to your own win rate, average R and risk size.
Run Leeloo Trading in the simulator — freeRules and their verification status change without notice; the firm's own documentation is always the final authority. This page is independent research, not investment or trading advice, and PropSurvival is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Leeloo Trading.