Most prop-firm evaluations end on a published rule, not on bad trading. Holding one reference trader constant — 52% win rate, 1.6R average win, 1R average loss, 4 trades/day, 1.0% risk per trade, 0.05R costs (~+0.30R expectancy) — the same seeded engine runs that profile across eight verified rule sets on 20,000 Monte Carlo paths per cell. Change only the rule set and the binding constraint moves: Apex's 4% intraday trailing floor can end a still-green path on a normal pullback, while at Topstep the 2% daily loss limit sits two full-size losses away at 1% risk (four at 0.5%) and often closes the day before the trailing floor is touched. Position size and rule set are one joint decision — published drawdown room ÷ risk per trade is the losses-to-elimination count: a 10% static floor gives 20→5 losses of room from 0.5%→2.0% risk, while a 4% trailing floor gives 8→2; at 2.0% risk that trailing account holds 2.0 losses against 5 under the static floor. Run your own stats against the full rule sets, free: /app?src=why-evaluations-fail.
Your numbers next · free path
Skip the tour when you already know the mechanic. Run your own stats against the full published rule sets — in-browser, no signup, nothing uploaded.
One realistic trader. Eight real prop-firm rule sets, verified 2026-07. The same seeded Monte Carlo engine that powers our free simulator. Scroll — and watch which rule actually ends the account.
Modestly profitable, disciplined, consistent — the profile every firm says it wants. Every number in this tour is this same trader. Only the rules change.
Positive expectancy, sane size. Under a plain 10% static floor this profile passes ~91% of evaluations. Hold that number.
What does this trader's equity do with no rules at all?
FindingIt rises. On the stated profile the edge is about +0.30R per trade (0.52 × 1.6R − 0.48 × 1R − 0.05R costs), so nothing binds this path and nothing here is wine. This trader is not the problem, and every figure that follows holds the profile fixed and changes only the rules.
Same path, Apex's rules. What ends it?
FindingThe trailing floor — on a pullback the static floor below it survives, and while the account is still in profit. Apex's 4% of room ratchets on peaks, including highs never banked, and never falls back. The wine ✕ is the one binding mark: it is where the account stops, not a warning colour.
Apex's drawdown floor trails your best intraday mark — including highs you never banked. An open trade that spikes and retraces moves the floor up for good, which is how a trader can end a green day closer to elimination than they started it. The floor only ever moves one way:
MyFundedFutures' end-of-day variant is the same mechanic reading closes instead of ticks — a spike given back before the bell doesn't count. The freeze point and the giveback arithmetic: the Apex rule, explained · method in the study · your own numbers.
Same path, Topstep's rules. What ends it now?
FindingThe 2% daily loss limit — before the trailing floor is ever in reach. At 1% risk per trade that limit sits two full-size losses away and closes the day while the floor below is still untouched. The famous rule is not the one that binds; both floors are grey reference lines, and the ✕ carries the only wine.
Replace Topstep's trailing floor with a static one and, for many traders, nothing changes at all — because the floor was never what ended the account. The 2% daily limit and the 50% consistency check end or block the path before the floor is ever touched. The arithmetic is blunt, and it is division rather than simulation: at 1% risk per trade, that daily limit sits two losses away — the day can be over before the edge has a chance to show up.
The drawdown label on the marketing page doesn't tell you which rule will actually end your evaluation. Rule sets interact. The consistency mechanic — and the exact daily cap that defuses it — has its own page.
A drawdown limit is posted in dollars, but it is spent in losses. Divide the published room by your risk per trade and you get the number that actually matters: how many ordinary losing trades stand between you and elimination. Nothing below is simulated — it is the firm's own posted limit divided by your size.
Read across: doubling risk halves your losses-to-elimination, under every rule set, always. Read down: the same 2% risk that leaves a static-floor account five losses of room leaves a 4% trailing account two. Risk size and rule set are one joint decision, not two — and a trailing floor makes it worse than this table shows, because the floor also rises toward you as you win.
| Published drawdown room | 0.5% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% — static floor (FTMO, FundedNext, Funding Pips, The5ers) | 20 | 10 | 6.7 | 5 |
| 4% — intraday trailing (Apex) | 8 | 4 | 2.7 | 2 |
| 4% — EOD trailing (Topstep, MyFundedFutures) | 8 | 4 | 2.7 | 2 |
How many full-size losses does each rule set actually allow you?
FindingAt 2.0% risk a 4% end-of-day trailing account holds 2.0 losses of room, against 5 under a 10% static floor — the same trader, the published limit divided by size. The published percentage is not the room. That cell is the binding constraint on the page, which is why it is the only wine mark here.
No single rule ends an evaluation — combinations do, and which one binds changes with the rule set and with the trader. Knowing which rule is aimed at your style is worth doing before you pay to meet it. We publish no odds for any firm; yours are one free run away — your stats, the full rule set, in your browser, nothing uploaded.
Run your numbers against the full rule sets — free
PropSurvival is independent analytical software — not affiliated with any firm named, and not investment advice. Equity paths above illustrate mechanisms; every probability is a measured model output for the stated profile (rules verified 2026-07).