We held no consistency figure for 26 firms. Only four of them are actually silent

A consistency rule caps how much of your total profit may come from your single best day. Pass the target in one strong session and a 30% rule does not fail you; it simply refuses the payout until you have traded enough to dilute that day. It is one of the most common reasons a trader who has technically passed does not get paid.

FirmFax stored a percentage for 45 of the 71 firms it tracks. The other 26 split into two very different groups that our data had been treating as one: firms that say in as many words that no consistency rule applies, and firms that simply never mention it. So we read all 26 of them — help centre, terms, FAQ and plan pages — and recorded every URL we opened.

16 of the 26 document a rule. 6 state plainly that none applies. 4 say nothing at all. That is the finding: silence is not a policy, and across the firms we track it is also rare.

A firm on our own "no consistency rule" page has one

FirmFax publishes a list of prop firms with no consistency rule. It is built from a flag that is supposed to mean positive evidence — the firm said so — rather than an absence in our records. One firm on it fails that test.

Ment Funding tells forex traders it has no consistency rule, and that sentence is true as far as it goes. Forex is free of a rule from $25K to $1M, but accounts above $1M carry a 35% consistency requirement before a withdrawal, and FirmFax lists Ment up to $2M. Ment futures and equities products both run 33%, in evaluation and before each payout. A trader who found Ment Funding through a page headed "no consistency rule" and bought a futures account, or a forex account above the size the statement covers, would meet a rule that page told them did not exist.

That is a defect in FirmFax before it is a criticism of the firm. The firm published both halves; we recorded one. The flag was set from a page that says no rule applies, without checking whether the same firm says something different elsewhere on its own site.

The rule that arrives too late

Where a rule exists, when it is enforced changes what it costs you. A rule applied during an evaluation is a condition of passing, and you meet it or you keep trading. A rule applied only when you request a payout is discovered after the money is notionally yours. 9 of the 61 documented rules work that second way: Alpha Capital Group, Crypto Fund Trader, Falcon Funded, FTUK, FundedNext CFDs, Funding Traders, Goat Funded Futures, Leeloo Trading, Ment Funding.

Goat Funded Futures puts it plainly: the rule is checked when you request a payout, not continuously while you trade. Falcon Funded's 45% applies to funded accounts and lifts only once a third payout has been approved. FundedNext requires 40% consistency on the funded CFD account before a Performance Reward can be requested, and nothing in the challenge stage prepares you for it.

The same brand, a different number

A firm-level figure is a simplification, and for 11 firms it is a misleading one. The strictest rule usually sits on the instant-funding product, which is also the one marketed as having the fewest hurdles.

• Alpha Capital Group — 15% best-day rule on Instant Funding against a 40% best-day rule plus a minimum profit requirement on standard on-demand plans. The help centre lists Alpha Prime with no consistency rule at all.
• AquaFunded Futures — Beginner Account: largest trading day may not exceed 40% of total profits. The forex side of the same operator runs 15% (Instant Pro, Aqua Man), 20% (Instant Standard) and 25% (One and Two Step Pro), all checked at payout.
• BluSky Trading — 34% on Propel Premium and Static evaluations, 21% on the 300K plan, 50% on Launch plans, and 30% of the profit target on stock plans. Orbit evaluations carry none.
• FTMO — Best Day Rule: the best day may not exceed 50% of Positive Days Profit, on the challenge and on the account that follows. FTMO Futures runs 40% on Growth and 50% on Pro in evaluation, with none on the Sim-Funded account.
• FTUK — Consistency score of biggest winning day over total profit: 20% on Instant Sim Funded, 25% on One Step Sim Funded.
• Funded Crypto Family — 40% on the one-step evaluation, 50% on the two-step. The help article does not say whether the rule carries into the funded stage.
• Funded Trading Plus — 35% within each step of the 2-Step Classic Challenge, rising to 50% of the current payout evaluation period once funded.
• Funding Traders — Withdrawal policy: 25% on Next-Gen, 15% on Instant Funding, both measured as the largest profitable day against total profits.
• FundingTicks — 25% consistency score on FundingTicks Zero, 50% on Pro+. FundingTicks One carries none.
• Goat Funded Futures — EOD: 50% in evaluation, 30% on the funded account. Instant Classic 20%, 1-Day-Pass funded 35%, Flex none once funded. Checked when a payout is requested, not while trading.
• Ment Funding — Forex is free of a rule from $25K to $1M, but accounts above $1M carry a 35% consistency requirement before a withdrawal, and FirmFax lists Ment up to $2M. Ment futures and equities products both run 33%, in evaluation and before each payout.

The firms that say nothing

4 firms published no consistency rule and no statement that they have none, on any page we opened. This is the weakest claim in the study and the one most likely to change: it says what we read, not what exists.

Lux Trading Firm is the awkward case. It has no cap on a best day, but it does use the word: consistency there means applying the same percentage of risk to every trade. OneUp Trader, which counts as documenting a rule, expresses it as a distribution across days rather than a share of profit. Neither fits a single number, which is why a single number is a poor way to store this.

The firms that say there is none

6 firms state it outright. These are the only ones a "no consistency rule" list can honestly carry, and even here the sentence usually has a scope.

Where the percentages land

Across the 61 firms that document a rule, the headline figure clusters tightly. The median is 40%, the range runs from 15% to 50%, and 40% is the single most common answer. A firm advertising 40% is advertising the middle of the market.

Every firm we re-read, and what changed

17 firms moved state as a result of this census. Each row below names the pages that moved it; the full set of URLs, for all 71 firms, is in the dataset.

What we could not read

7 pages we wanted returned an error or a bot check. The most consequential is City Traders Imperium's help centre, which answers a plain request with a 403 behind Cloudflare. CTI's Direct Funding page states there is no consistency rule; we could not check whether its help centre says the same about the challenge routes, so that firm's entry rests on the product pages alone.

Limitations

• A firm may document a rule on a page we did not open. "Silent" means silent across the URLs recorded on that firm row and nothing more.
• Several help centres sit behind bot checks and answer a plain fetch with 403. Those are listed under unreadable.
• Rules change. This is one day of reading, dated above.
• The sample is the 71 firms FirmFax tracks, not the sector.
• Firms marked method "swept" were matched against the pages we already cite. A sweep miss is a gap in our citations, not evidence that a firm publishes nothing.

Method

Each of the 71 firms was placed in one of three states from its own pages: it publishes a percentage, it states plainly that no consistency rule applies, or it says nothing. 30 firms were read by hand, one at a time — the 26 we held no percentage for, plus a handful whose stored figure implied a split across products. Every URL opened for those firms is recorded against the firm in the dataset, so any reader can repeat the check.

The remaining firms were matched automatically against the pages FirmFax already cites for them, looking for a consistency percentage in the page text. That is a weaker check, and it is marked as such on every row it produced: a firm whose rule lives on a page we do not cite will not be found by it. Only the firm's own domain counts. Third-party directories and review sites were read for leads and never used as the source of a figure.

The figures on this page are computed at build time from the frozen census file linked below, so the page and the download cannot disagree.