Leaving Soonまだご質問がありますか？
ぜひ、今すぐお気軽にお問い合わせください！
免責事項
本サイトに掲載されているすべての情報は、金融市場における取引に関する教育目的のみを意図したものです。これらは、金融アドバイス、事業または投資の推奨、あるいはいかなる投資商品の取引機会や推奨を意図するものではありません。Hola Primeは、流動性プロバイダーから提供されるデータフィードを備えたツール、資料、および模擬取引プラットフォームを含め、トレーダーに対して教育環境を提供するのみです。 本サイトの情報は、その配布または利用が現地の法律や規制に違反する国または管轄区域の居住者を対象としたものではありません。
A trader passes phase 1 in a week, up 9% and feeling unstoppable. Two weeks later, the account is gone, and choosing the best two-step challenge for forex prop trading turns out to have been a question about drawdown rules, not the profit target on the sales page. Phase 2 did not end on a bad trade. It ended on a drawdown rule they never actually read.
A two-step challenge is a paid evaluation with two phases. You hit a profit target in phase 1, then a smaller one in phase 2 while staying inside daily and overall loss limits, and only then does the firm issue a funded account you can draw payouts from. That funded trader challenge structure exists to test consistency, not a single lucky run, which is why the phase 2 target is lower, and the risk rules matter more than the headline number.
This guide compares the terms that actually decide whether you pass, across five firms, so you can match a forex funding challenge to the way you already trade rather than the way a landing page wishes you did.
Here is the quick version. The firm that suits you depends on your drawdown tolerance, your pace, and how you want to be paid.
|
会社 |
Suits |
Standout term |
|
こんにちは、プライム |
Traders who want a fast, conditional one-hour payout target and flexible rules |
100% fee refund on passing; split up to 95% on the monthly cadence |
|
FTMO |
Traders who value a long payout record and a static drawdown |
Full challenge-fee refund on first payout |
|
FundedNext |
Traders who want to earn during the evaluation itself |
15% profit share paid on phase-1 profit, pass or fail |
|
シティ・トレーダーズ・インペリウム |
Swing traders who want scaling toward a higher split |
Split scales toward 100%; monthly salary on some models |
|
Goatが資金提供したトレーダー |
Traders who want to choose their phase count |
One, two, and three-step models under one brand |
Profit targets cluster around 8–10% in phase 1 and 4–6% in phase 2, so the target is rarely the deciding factor.
The drawdown method is the real separator: nearly every two-step forex challenge uses a static, balance-based maximum loss, which is more forgiving than a trailing one.
Time limits are disappearing: most of these evaluations now run with no maximum-days limit, though minimum trading-day rules still apply.
Fee treatment splits the field: some firms refund the fee on passing or on first payout, and at least one pays a share of evaluation profit regardless of outcome.
Profit splits start near 80% and scale higher on a schedule, so read the cadence the top number attaches to before you compare.
Before the comparison, it helps to know why the phase count changes how you should trade, and how a funded trader program works underneath both formats.
A one-step evaluation asks for a single, usually higher profit target in one window. It is faster, and it tends to carry tighter drawdown to compensate. A two-step splits the work across two phases with a lower phase 2 target, trading speed for a gentler ongoing risk envelope. If you want the single-phase route, Hola Prime runs it as the one-step prop firm challenge on the Prime Challenge page.
The practical difference is who each one suits.
|
因子 |
One-Step Challenge |
Two-Step Challenge |
|
利益目標 |
A single, higher target in one phase |
Split across two phases, lower in phase 2 |
|
Vetting window |
One performance window |
Two separate performance windows |
|
Time to funded |
Faster, often days |
Slower, spread across two phases |
|
Ongoing risk terms |
Usually tighter drawdown |
Usually more forgiving, static drawdown |
|
Suits |
Fast, high-frequency traders who accumulate results quickly |
Consistent swing and intraday traders |
A one-step prop firm route rewards traders who can prove themselves in a single push. A one-step evaluation prop firm is the right call if speed matters more than a soft landing. A two-step prop firm evaluation rewards the trader who would rather show steadiness twice than gamble once. Neither is better in the abstract. One fits your trading, the other does not.
A strong funding challenge for forex is defined by the terms that fail traders quietly, not the ones that sound generous on the pricing page. Here is what to weigh, framed around where traders actually get caught.
The combined target tells you how much work the evaluation really asks for.
Most two-step challenges want 8% to 10% in phase 1 and 4% to 6% in phase 2. A lower phase 2 target is not a second, easier hurdle so much as a consistency test. The firm is checking whether a trader who pushed hard in phase 1 can still trade calmly at a slower pace. If phase 2 asks for as much as phase 1, treat that as a harder, not a friendlier, structure.
This is the single term that decides most phase 2 outcomes, and the one traders read last.
There are three drawdown types worth knowing. A static, balance-based maximum loss is fixed from your starting balance and never moves, so profits you bank cannot shrink your loss room. A trailing maximum loss follows your equity up as you profit, which quietly tightens the floor beneath a winning run. A daily loss limit caps how much you can lose in a single day, separate from the overall floor. The good news for two-step traders is that nearly every two-step forex challenge in this comparison uses the static, balance-based type, which is the more forgiving of the two. The daily limit is where the sharp edge usually sits, commonly around 5%, and it is measured intraday, so an open position counts.
Time pressure has largely left the two-step format, but a different clock has replaced it.
Most of these evaluations now run with no maximum-days limit, so you can trade at your own pace. What remains is the minimum trading day requirement, often a handful of days per phase. For a low-frequency or swing trader, that minimum matters more than any deadline, because it can force you to place trades you would not otherwise take just to satisfy the count. Pace the requirement early rather than near a payout.
The sticker fee is not the real cost, and the refund terms are where firms genuinely differ.
Some firms refund the full evaluation fee when you pass. Others return it on your first payout rather than at the moment you clear phase 2. At least one pays you a share of your phase-1 profit whether or not you pass, which changes the math entirely. On a breach, the fee is almost always gone, and a retry means a fresh purchase, sometimes at a discounted reset price. Read what triggers the refund and when it lands, not just whether one exists.
A payout claim is only worth what the firm can show, and the top split number usually comes with conditions.
Profit splits in this field start near 80% and scale higher, but the headline figure almost always attaches to a specific payout cadence or a paid upgrade. A firm advertising 95% may be quoting its monthly schedule while its bi-weekly or on-demand option sits lower. Read the profit split against the cadence it belongs to before you compare two firms. On speed, treat a published, checkable payout record as worth more than a marketing number, and read processing-time claims as targets under conditions, not guarantees.
The rules that catch funded traders are often the ones that change between account types at the same firm.
News trading, weekend holding, and expert advisor permissions vary not just between firms but between account models within one firm. A strategy that is allowed on one plan can breach another. Consistency rules, which cap how much of your total profit can come from a single day or trade, are another common trap. Confirm the exact permissions for the specific plan you intend to buy, not the firm's general reputation.
Here is how five two-step forex evaluations line up on the terms above. Every figure is drawn from each firm's own pages and is point-in-time, since these terms change often. Hola Prime is listed first as the publisher of this guide and described in the same neutral fields as the rest.
Hola Prime runs its two-step route as the 2-Step Pro Challenge, and covers the same ground with a 2-Step Prime variant. On the 2-Step Pro, phase 1 asks for 8% and phase 2 for 5%, under a 5% daily loss limit and a 10% static maximum loss fixed from your starting balance. There is no maximum-days limit, and the minimum is two trading days per phase. The evaluation fee is refunded in full when you pass. The profit split reaches up to 95%, and that top figure attaches to the monthly payout cadence, with bi-weekly and on-demand payouts set at 80%. Approved withdrawals are processed against a one-hour target under defined conditions, measured from when complete and accurate information is received, which is a firm-stated target rather than a guarantee on every request.
Leverage is 100x on the 2-Step Pro and 50x on the 2-Step Prime. Higher leverage lets you hold a larger position on less capital, and it enlarges losses at the same rate as gains, so it belongs inside a risk plan rather than at the center of one. You can read the full structure on the two-step prop firm challenge page, and check the firm's own processing data in its payout transparency report. If the structure fits your style, the Pro Challenge is the two-step route to start with.
FTMO's two-step is the format most traders picture when they think of a funded trader challenge. Phase 1 asks for 10% and phase 2 for 5%, under a 5% daily loss and a 10% static maximum loss. Recent updates removed the fixed time limit on both phases. The challenge fee is refunded on your first payout rather than at the pass, and the funded split starts at 80% and scales toward 90%. Its standout is longevity: FTMO has one of the longest payout track records in the sector, which is what many traders are really buying.
FundedNext's Stellar two-step asks for 8% in phase 1 and 5% in phase 2, under a 5% daily loss and a 10% static maximum loss, with no maximum-days limit and a minimum of five trading days per phase. Its funded split starts at 80% and scales higher. The term that sets it apart is that it pays a 15% share of your phase-1 profit whether or not you go on to pass, which is unusual and changes the risk calculation for a challenge fee. Payouts on funded accounts run on a short weekly to bi-weekly cadence.
City Traders Imperium's two-step asks for 10% in phase 1 and 5% in phase 2, under a 5% daily loss and a 10% static, balance-based maximum loss, with no fixed time limit. The evaluation fee is refundable, and the funded split starts at 80% and can scale toward 100% with performance. It suits slower, structured swing traders, and some of its models attach a monthly salary on top of the split, which is its most distinctive term.
Goat Funded Trader lets you choose your phase count, offering one, two, and three-step models under one brand. On its two-step, phase targets sit around 8% then 6% depending on the specific variant, under a roughly 4% to 5% daily loss and a 10% static maximum loss, with a short three-day minimum and no time limit. The base split is 80%, liftable to 100% through a paid add-on at checkout. Its terms move frequently, so the variant you buy is worth reading in full at the moment of purchase.
|
会社 |
Phase 1 Target |
Phase 2 Target |
Drawdown Method |
Time Limit |
Fee Refund |
利益配分 |
出金スピード |
|
こんにちは、プライム |
8% |
5% |
10% static; 5% daily |
No max-days limit |
Full refund on passing |
Up to 95% (monthly cadence; 80% bi-weekly/on-demand) |
One-hour target, under defined conditions |
|
FTMO |
10% |
5% |
10% static; 5% daily |
No time limit |
Refund on first payout |
80%, scaling to 90% |
Fast processing once verified |
|
FundedNext |
8% |
5% |
10% static; 5% daily |
No max-days (min 5 days/phase) |
15% profit share during evaluation |
80%, scaling higher |
Weekly to bi-weekly |
|
シティ・トレーダーズ・インペリウム |
10% |
5% |
10% static; 5% daily |
No fixed time limit |
Refundable fee |
80%, scaling to 100% |
Bi-weekly (24 to 48 hours) |
|
Goatが資金提供したトレーダー |
8% (varies) |
6% (varies) |
10% static; 4 to 5% daily |
No time limit (min 3 days) |
Varies by model |
80% (100% paid add-on) |
隔週 |
Every number above moves, so confirm the current terms on each firm's own page before you buy. If you pass and want to grow the account rather than restart, look at how a scaling plan works, since that decides your ceiling more than the starting balance does.
Treat this as the due-diligence pass you run on any shortlisted firm. It is about confirming claims and reading source documents, not deciding which terms are good.
The pricing page sells. The rules and prohibited-practices pages tell you how the account actually ends.
Open the full rules and look specifically for the clauses that most often contradict marketing copy: the exact drawdown calculation, the consistency rule, and the definition of a valid trading day. These are the terms that quietly decide phase 2, and they rarely appear on the checkout screen.
A payout claim you cannot verify is just a number on a banner.
Look for evidence you can check independently: a published payout record, dated proof, and trader sentiment on platforms the firm does not control. A useful model of what a verifiable record looks like is a firm publishing its own processing data, and the mechanics of the payout stage are worth understanding in full through this guide on how payouts work. Weigh the pattern across sources over any single glowing review.
The firm's reputation is not the same as your plan's rulebook.
News, weekend, and expert advisor permissions frequently change between account models at the same firm, and so do drawdown percentages. Confirm the rules for the exact size and plan you intend to buy, because a permission you assumed carries over may not.
The headline fee is the start of the cost, not the whole of it.
Account for commissions, the cost of a reset if you breach, and the realistic chance of a second attempt. A cheaper challenge with wide spreads or an expensive reset can cost more over two attempts than a pricier one you pass on the first try.
Pre-sale support is the cheapest preview of funded-stage support you will get.
Ask one specific rules question, ideally about the drawdown calculation, and judge the answer against the written terms. A clear, accurate reply is a good signal. A vague or contradictory one tells you what the payout-stage conversation may feel like.
These are the habits that pass evaluations, each tied to the terms above rather than to generic trading advice.
Set your risk per trade against the firm's actual drawdown numbers, not a rule of thumb.
Under a 5% daily and 10% static maximum loss, a fixed fraction per trade keeps you clear of both floors. Work the position size back from the daily limit, and leave room for the trade to breathe without ever putting the daily loss in reach on a single idea.
Work backward from the phase target to a weekly return your strategy has actually produced.
If phase 1 asks for 8% and your honest history is 2% a week, that is a four-week phase at your real pace, not a sprint. Planning to the number you have hit before, rather than the one you hope for, is what keeps risk sane in phase 1.
The lower phase 2 target is the most common place to overtrade.
Because 5% feels easy after clearing 8%, traders push size and give back the progress. Consistency rules punish a single outsized day, so the winning move in phase 2 is usually to trade smaller and finish slower.
Pace the day count so it never forces a trade you do not want.
If a phase needs a minimum number of trading days, spread them out from the start rather than scrambling to log them near the finish. A forced trade to satisfy a counter is a self-inflicted breach waiting to happen.
Run phase 2 on evidence, not memory.
Record every near miss against a limit, the day, the setup, and how close you came. By phase 2 you will have a personal map of where your own trading brushes the rules, which is worth more than any general checklist.
The profit target is the least useful thing to compare. Two-step forex challenges look alike on the headline numbers and separate on the rules underneath: the drawdown method, the daily limit, the minimum trading days, and how the fee and split actually work.
So pick the challenge whose drawdown method and time terms match how you already trade, not the one with the lowest fee or the loudest banner. Read the drawdown terms before you buy, because that one document decides more outcomes than any other. If Hola Prime's two-step structure fits the way you trade, you can create an account and start when the terms match what you need. Read the rules first, the way you would with any firm.
著者について：サム・サレ
ロンドンを拠点とするトレーダーのサム・サレは、ベッドフォードシャー大学で経営学を学んでいた19歳の時にトレーディングの道を歩み始めました。トレーディングの専門知識とマーケティングのバックグラウンドを活かし、現在はHola Primeでコーチを務め、トレーダーの自信、一貫性、そして金融リテラシーを養うことを目的とした教育コンテンツの開発に取り組んでいます。
