THE RULEBOOK · 08 Evaluation structure

One-Step vs Two-Step Evaluations

One round or two? The structure decides how many targets, drawdowns and failure points stand between you and a funded account.

One-Step vs Two-Step Evaluations

Before drawdowns and consistency rules, there’s the structural question: how many rounds do you have to pass?

Two-step (the classic)

  • Phase 1: hit the first target (often 8–10%) inside the drawdown limits.
  • Phase 2: hit a smaller target (often 5%) on a fresh account with the same limits.
  • Then: funded account.

Why firms like it: two opportunities to filter risk. Why traders dislike it: two failure points, two chances to pay a reset.

One-step

  • One target (often 10%, sometimes 50% for futures-style programs).
  • Pass it → funded account directly.

Why traders like it: one failure point, faster path. Why firms like it: they set the target high enough to keep the filter.

Which suits whom

You… Choose
Want the fastest path to funded One-step (higher single target)
Prefer smaller, more achievable milestones Two-step
Trade futures-style (50% targets, no time limit) Futures one-step (Apex, TPT)
Want the industry default with maximum comparability Two-step

The gotcha

One-step is not automatically “easier”, the target is usually set so the overall difficulty is similar. Compare target + drawdown + daily loss + time limit as one package, not “number of steps”. A 10% one-step with a 5% drawdown is not the same product as a 10% one-step with a 10% drawdown.

02

Where This Bites

firms with this rule
Apex Trader Funding The volume king of futures evaluations. The trailing drawdown is the trap. Take Profit Trader Simple 1-step futures, no consistency rule, and an 80% split that goes to 90%. FundingPips Aggressive value, aggressive growth, the consistency rule bites on payouts.