Backtest · Real futures sessions · Oct 2024 → Oct 2026

Can a Trading Strategy Pass a Futures Prop-Firm Challenge? Odds From Real Futures Data

Futures prop firms sell evaluations, also called challenges: reach a profit target without breaking a loss limit — usually a trailing drawdown that follows your best balance up — and you trade the firm’s money. We asked what it takes to pass one with a fixed, rules-based strategy, and replayed thousands of challenges on real futures sessions: 8 strategies, 59 plans from six firms, 6 markets, and a search of 6,781 rules.

Published October 14, 2026 · Stable Income Strategy research

The short answer

On two years of real futures sessions (October 2024 to October 2026), the strategy that passed prop-firm challenges most often held micro Nasdaq-100 futures overnight: bought at the 6 pm New York open when the previous close was above its 200-day average, sold at the 9:30 open, plus a few day trades. On a 150K plan with no deadline (Tradeify 150K Growth), at about $300 of risk a trade, it passed 81% of replayed challenges against 19% for a coin flip, at about $458 in fees per pass — but no strategy passed more than 49% of Apex’s 30-day challenges. A search of 6,781 rules found mixes that passed 70–85% where they were fitted and only 15–32% on a year they had not seen. The 81% rests on two years of one market and ran from 35% to 100% by start year in a ten-year check.

passed: NQ overnight on a 150K no-deadline plan (coin flip 19%): 81%
best pass rate on Apex’s 30-day challenges: 49%
what 77–95% rule mixes passed on the year they had not seen: 15–32%
challenge fees per pass, best combination: ≈$458

Key takeaways

Time beat cleverness: the same Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy passed 81% of 150K challenges with no deadline (coin flip 19%), but no strategy passed more than 49% of Apex’s 30-day challenges.
Of 8 strategies on 6 markets, only four pairs earned in both years — NQ overnight (daily Sharpe 0.16 / 0.13), NQ gap fill, NQ momentum and gold overnight — and no market but the Nasdaq-100 passed more than about 49%.
Every firm’s best was the overnight strategy on its 150K no-deadline plan (76–81%) at about $300 a trade, roughly one micro contract — but fees per pass ran from about $380 (FundedNext 150K Flex) to $4,824 (Apex 150K Legacy, billed monthly).
ETF stand-ins flattered: on the same days the momentum breakout earned +$372 per challenge bought on the Nasdaq-100 ETF and −$102 on real NQ futures, where it passed 33% — below the coin flip’s 36%.
Tweaks hardly mattered: skipping Monday evenings (+3.3 points) was the only change that held up; stop sizes, contract steps after wins or losses, moving-average limits, holding past 9:30, 94 indicators and the Fear & Greed index did not help.
A search of 6,781 rules found mixes that passed 70–85% on the days they were fitted to — and 15–32% on the year they had not seen.
The 81% is fragile: it rests on two years of one market, ran from 35% to 100% by start year in a ten-year check, and one start fell $4,546 into a $5,000 drawdown allowance.

What we tested

Six studies, each one a step further. Every pass rate comes from real 1-minute futures bars — whole sessions from 6 pm to 5 pm New York, overnight included — under each plan’s own rules; ETF prices serve only as a longer check.

1The old favourite on real futures

Tested: A Nasdaq-100 momentum breakout that looked best on prices built from the Nasdaq-100 ETF: about 44% of 30-day 50K challenges passed in both 2016–21 and 2022–26.

Found: On real NQ futures it passed 33%, below the coin flip’s 36%, and lost $102 per challenge bought — against +$372 on the ETF on the same days.

2A Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy

Tested: Built from the futures’ own sessions: hold overnight when the market is above its 200-day average, fade big opening gaps, take momentum trades by day.

Found: 47% of 30-day 50K end-of-day challenges passed (coin flip 31%): 738 trades, 47% won, profit factor 1.36 (gross wins ÷ gross losses).

3Ways to improve it

Tested: Smaller or larger size after losses and wins, an optimal sizing schedule, nights of the week, stop sizes, distance from moving averages, holding winners past the open, 94 chart indicators, the Fear & Greed index.

Found: Only skipping Monday evenings held up (+3.3 points). The rest was noise or worse.

4A search for 70%

Tested: 6,781 rules on real NQ sessions: night holds, time windows, going with or against the move, breaks and fades of the Asia, London, pre-market and first-hour ranges, indicators on 15- and 60-minute bars.

Found: Mixes of 6–25 rules passed 70–85% on the days they were fitted to, and 15–32% on the year they had not seen.

5Every strategy, plan and market

Tested: 8 strategies × 59 plans from 6 firms × 6 markets (Nasdaq-100, S&P 500, Dow, Russell 2000, gold, crude oil) = 2,832 combinations, each at its best risk per trade from $100 to $1,600.

Found: The overnight strategy on a 150K no-deadline plan was the best at every firm: 76–81% passed. No other market passed more than about 49%.

6Instant funding

Tested: The only instant-funding plans among the six firms (Tradeify Lightning, 25K to 150K), followed through every payout for a year.

Found: The 100K reached a first payout in 76% of tries and netted about +$3,023 a year per account — close to buying the evaluation route (+$2,714).

The Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy (“night-day”)

Micro Nasdaq-100 futures (MNQ, one tenth of the full NQ contract). ATR is the average true range: the market’s typical daily range.

1
6 pm New York — Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings
If yesterday’s 4 pm close was above its 200-day average, buy micro Nasdaq-100 futures (MNQ) at the open of the session. Stop: half the average daily range (0.5 ATR) below. Monday evenings are skipped.
2
9:30 am
Sell the overnight position at the stock market’s open.
3
9:30 am, after a big gap
If the market opens at least one average daily range (1 ATR) away from yesterday’s 4 pm close, trade against the gap: target yesterday’s close, stop 0.5 ATR, out by noon.
4
During the day
Momentum breakout day trades — skipped on the day after a 9:30-to-4 pm range wider than 1.5 ATR. Only one position is open at a time.

Size

Risk is set in dollars at the stop, and the number of contracts follows volatility: about $300 a trade on a 150K no-deadline plan (roughly 1 MNQ overnight and 2 by day), $900–1,200 on a 30-day 50K plan.

Why overnight: on real NQ futures about two thirds of the rise came overnight, and 56% of nights were up. On Nasdaq-100 ETF prices since 2016, nights above the 200-day average gained +7.0 basis points on average and nights below lost −2.6 (a basis point is 0.01%).

Pass odds by plan

Each row is a strategy at its best risk per trade on that plan. The 150K overnight rows are plans with no deadline; the Apex row has a 30-day limit. Fees per pass are the challenge fees paid, on average, for each pass — failed tries included, monthly plans charged for every month started.

Pass rate and fees per pass, by strategy and prop-firm plan
Strategy	Plan	Passed	Worse of the two years	Fees per pass
NQ overnight	Tradeify 150K Growth	81%	72%	≈$458
NQ overnight	Topstep 150K (monthly)	80%	—	$1,687
NQ overnight	Take Profit Trader 150K (monthly)	80%	—	$2,951
NQ overnight	MyFundedFutures 150K Rapid	79%	—	$583
NQ overnight	FundedNext 150K Flex	76%	—	$380
NQ overnight	Apex 150K Legacy (monthly)	76%	—	$4,824
NQ overnight	Tradeify 100K Growth	75%	62%	$338
NQ overnight	FundedNext 100K Legacy	73%	—	$330
NQ overnight	FundedNext 100K Flex	66%	52%	$228
NQ overnight	Apex 50K or 25K end-of-day, 30-day limit	49%	—	—
NQ gap fill	Take Profit Trader 25K	67%	64%	—
NQ momentum breakout	Its best plan	57%	44%	—
VWAP pullback	Its best plan	49–52%	—	—
Opening range, VWAP fade, 10 am setup, candle range	Their best plans	≤43%	—	—

Coin flip: 19% for the top row, 42% for the gap-fill row. Prices: Tradeify 150K Growth $369 one-time, MyFundedFutures 150K Rapid $463, Topstep 150K $199 a month; those three ask for $9,000 of profit with a $4,500–5,000 drawdown allowance. The best combination took about 115 sessions to pass. With the older momentum strategy, 50K plans with a consistency rule (a cap on the best day’s share of profit) passed only 7–17%. Plans as published in autumn 2026 — firms change rules and prices often.

What did and did not improve the overnight strategy

Each idea was replayed on real NQ futures — most also on S&P 500, Dow and Russell 2000 futures — on a 30-day 50K end-of-day challenge at $900 at the stop, where the strategy as built passed 47–48%. Two years hold only about 16 independent 30-day windows, so gaps of a few points are noise.

Changes tried on the overnight strategy
Idea	What happened
Skip Monday evenings	The one change that held up: Monday-evening nights lost on all four index futures (NQ profit factor 0.68 over 89 nights). Skipping them added +3.3 points across four markets (+4.7 on NQ), in both halves. On ten years of ETF prices the weak Mondays appear only since 2023.
Other sets of nights	Every set of nights scored 32–39% (four-market average); no nights at all 34.9% against every night 34.5%. The best-looking sets ranked 54th to 74th of 218 on the other half.
Stop size	Best at 0.4–0.5 ATR on NQ (44–47%), against 37–43% at 0.75 ATR or wider; 0.25–0.3 ATR stopped out about half the nights. Per contract, no stop size added an edge.
Fewer contracts after a loss, more after a win	No gain. As built 47.5%; a fixed 3–10 MNQ 46–54%; start at 1 and add after wins 42–49%; always 1 MNQ 17% (71% ran out of time). The trade after a loss was no worse than after a win (49% against 46% won).
Half size when losing	After a red day, a losing trade or once down $500: 44.9–46.8% against 44.1% flat — noise. Losses did not cluster.
Bigger size when winning, or an “optimal” schedule	Up to 2× after wins: 41–49% (42–46% on reshuffled days) against 44.5% flat. A day-by-day optimal sizing plan scored 48.8% on the days it was built on, 33% and 52% on the unseen years, against 38.5% and 54% flat.
Sit out when far from the 20-, 50- or 100-day average	The best limits added about 1 point because they almost never trigger; tight ones cost up to 10. Nights more than 2% below the 20-day average (still above the 200-day) were the best of all.
Hold a winning night past 9:30, for 3× the stop	Worse: NQ 47.5% → 41.5% (46.6% with the stop moved to entry). Nights won 56% of the time, held ones 39%. After a winning night, the 9:30-to-4 pm move was −0.07% to +0.01% in all eight ETF samples.
94 chart indicators as filters	Filters picked on 2016–21 ETF prices were no better on 2022–26. On futures bars the best pair (relative volume + Mass Index) lifted NQ from 44% to 57%, but meaningless shifted data gained 1–4 points the same way — perhaps 2–3 points are real.
The Fear & Greed index	No link (NQ correlation +0.05): the overnight leg earns in calm and greed, the momentum leg in fear, and they cancel.
A daily profit goal or loss stop	No gain.

The 6,781-rule search: why 70–85% did not last

On a 30-day 50K challenge, passing half the time takes a daily Sharpe ratio — the average day’s profit divided by how much days swing — of about 0.18, and 70% takes about 0.35. The overnight strategy has 0.16 in its first year and 0.13 in its second (year 1 runs to October 21, 2025). We scored 6,781 rules on each year and combined the best.

Rule mixes, where they were fitted and how they did on data they had not seen
Rule mix	Passed where fitted	Passed on unseen data
6 rules, fitted on both years	70%	—
12 rules, fitted on both years	81%	—
25 rules, fitted on both years	85%	—
6–25 rules, fitted on year 1 → year 2	77–95%	15–32%
6–25 rules, fitted on year 2 → year 1	51–90%	9–40%
NQ mixes → S&P 500 futures	70–85%	34–39%
NQ mixes → Dow futures	70–85%	19–21%
NQ mixes → Russell 2000 futures	70–85%	19–29%

For comparison, the overnight strategy as built passed 55% in year 1 and 41% in year 2 (48% overall), and 33%, 32% and 37% on S&P 500, Dow and Russell 2000 futures. The best single rule had a daily Sharpe ratio of about 0.10–0.14 in both years; the top 10 picked on one year fell to −0.02 to +0.08 on the other. Only breaks of the pre-market range kept working (0.09 → 0.06–0.08). Indicators on 15- and 60-minute futures bars pointed the same way in both years no more often than when matched with another day’s moves (11.4% against 15.2% on 60-minute bars).

Is it luck? How we checked

Two years of one market is a small sample. These checks show how much of the 81% might be real.

Coin flip

The same trades with the same sizes but a random direction passed 19% of the 150K no-deadline challenges the strategy passed 81% of, and 31–36% of the 30-day 50K ones it passed 44–47% of. Year by year the 81% was 88% and 72%.

Real futures vs ETF stand-ins

Built from the Nasdaq-100 ETF, the same days looked better than on real NQ futures: the futures paid 56% of the ETF’s overnight gain and 92% of its day trades. The momentum breakout that passed about 44% on ETF prices passed 33% on real futures.

Ten years, by start year

On ten years of ETF prices cut to what the futures actually paid, the 150K plan passed 78% (16% failed) — but 35% of 2016 starts, 100% of 2017, 89% of 2018, 39% of 2019, 54% of 2020, 41% of 2021 and 100% of 2022–26. With half the edge it passed 55%; with none, 19%.

If the edge shrinks

On the futures days, cutting the edge by 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% gave pass rates of 78%, 60%, 41%, 24% and 13%.

Every start, followed to the end

All 243 first-year starts passed. Starts up to March 2026 all passed (later ones were still open), but the deepest fall took $4,546 of the $5,000 drawdown allowance, with the bottom on July 29, 2026.

Other markets

The edge does not carry over: at the same settings the 150K plan passed 43% on S&P 500 futures, 32% on the Russell 2000 and 15% on the Dow.

Instant funding: skipping the evaluation

An instant-funding plan has no evaluation: you pay once, trade a funded account from the first day and are paid each time you reach a payout goal. Of the six firms, only Tradeify sold one in autumn 2026 (Lightning). We counted the first payout as the pass and followed one account a year through every payout, with the overnight strategy at about one MNQ.

Tradeify Lightning by size: price, drawdown, first payout and net a year
Lightning size	Price, one-time	Drawdown (end of day)	Reached a first payout	Worse year	Net a year per account
25K	$345	$1,000	32%	24%	+$445
50K	$492	$2,000	54%	43%	+$2,158
100K	$660	$4,000	76%	67%	+$3,023
150K	$796	$5,250	71%	72%	+$3,279

First payout goals: $1,500 / $3,000 / $6,000 / $9,000 of profit, reached in 75–150 sessions. Net = what one account paid out in a year (the trader’s 90%) minus its price. A coin flip reached a first payout 7–16% of the time and lost $163–450 a year. Buying the Growth evaluation instead and then trading funded netted +$420 / +$1,971 / +$2,714 / +$3,194 a year, but paid out less often (20 / 38 / 55 / 45% against 33 / 57 / 79 / 68% for Lightning); over two years the 150K Growth route netted +$10,142 against +$8,964.

The risks

Two years, one market: the 81% rests on the Nasdaq-100’s edge in 2024–26. At the same settings the 150K plan passed 43% on S&P 500 futures, 32% on the Russell 2000 and 15% on the Dow.
Uneven by start year: on ten years of ETF prices the same plan passed anywhere from 35% (2016 starts) to 100%, and 72% in the weaker of the two futures years.
Close calls: one stretch took $4,546 of a $5,000 drawdown allowance. With $4,500 (MyFundedFutures 150K Rapid, Topstep 150K), 26% of starts in April–June 2026 failed; with $4,000 (FundedNext 150K Flex), 20% of all starts; with 2 MNQ on every trade, 23%.
It can go wrong fast: 30-day challenges started in September 2026 all failed, on overnight stops in late September.
It is slow: about 115 trading sessions to pass, so a plan billed monthly costs several months of fees.
Passing is not being paid: the funded account after the evaluation has its own payout rules. This study counts passes and fees, not payouts — except for the instant-funding plans.
Firm rules and prices change often; in autumn 2026 some firms, Apex among them, did not allow automated trading in evaluations. Everything here is as published in autumn 2026.

Questions

What percentage of traders pass prop firm challenges?

This study measured trading rules, not traders. Replayed on two years of real futures sessions, four of 8 strategies did no better than a coin flip at their best, and the coin flip itself — the same trades in a random direction — passed 31–36% of 30-day 50K challenges. The best strategy, a Nasdaq-100 overnight hold, passed 47–49% of 30-day challenges and 81% of a 150K plan with no deadline, against 19% for the coin flip.

What is the easiest prop firm challenge to pass?

In this replay, plans with no deadline and a large drawdown allowance, traded small. Every firm’s best was its 150K no-deadline plan: the Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy at about $300 a trade passed 76–81% (Tradeify 150K Growth 81%, Topstep and Take Profit Trader 150K 80%, MyFundedFutures 150K Rapid 79%, FundedNext 150K Flex and Apex 150K Legacy 76%). The best 30-day challenge (Apex 50K or 25K end-of-day) reached 49%. 50K plans with a consistency rule passed only 7–17% with the older momentum strategy. Firms change rules often, so check the current terms.

Can a bot pass a prop firm evaluation?

A fixed set of rules can, in a replay of history: a Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy passed 81% of 150K no-deadline challenges and 47% of 30-day 50K ones, against 19% and 31% for a coin flip. More complex rules did worse on new data — mixes from a search of 6,781 rules passed 70–85% where they were fitted and 15–32% on the year they had not seen. Some firms, Apex among them, ban automated trading in evaluations, so read the firm’s rules before automating anything.

How much does it cost to get funded?

Counting the failed tries, the challenge fees per pass for the best combinations were about $228 (FundedNext 100K Flex, 66% passed), $330 (FundedNext 100K Legacy), $338 (Tradeify 100K Growth), $380 (FundedNext 150K Flex), $458 (Tradeify 150K Growth, 81% passed) and $583 (MyFundedFutures 150K Rapid). Plans billed monthly cost more because the strategy took about 115 sessions to pass: Topstep 150K $1,687, Take Profit Trader 150K $2,951, Apex 150K Legacy $4,824. Instant-funding accounts skip the evaluation for a one-time $345–796.

Which strategy passes futures prop-firm challenges most often?

In our tests, a Nasdaq-100 overnight strategy (“night-day”): buy micro Nasdaq-100 futures (MNQ) at the 6 pm New York open when the previous close is above its 200-day average (not on Monday evenings), stop at half the average daily range, sell at 9:30; plus a fade of big opening gaps and momentum day trades. It passed 81% of Tradeify 150K Growth challenges at about $300 a trade, and 47–49% of 30-day challenges. Next best: Nasdaq-100 gap fill 67%, momentum 57%; opening range, VWAP fade, the 10 am setup and candle-range trades were near a coin flip.

Is a 30-day or a no-deadline challenge easier?

No deadline, by far, for a slow strategy. The overnight strategy passed 47–49% of 30-day challenges; on a 30-day 50K plan 1 MNQ per trade was too slow (17% passed, 71% ran out of time). With no deadline, 1 MNQ passed 61% of 50K plans, and about $300 a trade passed 81% of a 150K plan, taking about 115 sessions. On a 30-day plan, passing half the time needs a daily Sharpe ratio near 0.18 and 70% near 0.35; the strategy has 0.13–0.16.

Are instant-funding accounts better than evaluations?

About the same in our replay. Among the six firms only Tradeify sold instant funding in autumn 2026 (Lightning, $345–796 one-time). With the overnight strategy at about 1 MNQ, the 100K reached its first payout 76% of the time and one account a year netted about +$3,023 after its price; buying the 100K Growth evaluation and then trading funded netted +$2,714 but paid out less often (55% against 79%). Over two years the 150K Growth route netted +$10,142 against +$8,964 for Lightning.

Why do ETF-based backtests overstate futures results?

On the same days, results built from the Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) scaled to futures were better than real NQ futures bars: the futures paid 56% of the ETF’s overnight gain and 92% of its day trades, and a momentum breakout made +$372 per challenge bought on the ETF but −$102 on futures. The ETF has no overnight session to trade, only a jump from close to open, and its gaps differ on ex-dividend days. The pass rates here come from real futures sessions; the ten-year ETF check was cut to what the futures actually paid.

Is this investment advice?

No. It is a replay of past prices for education. Futures carry a substantial risk of loss, challenge fees are lost when a challenge fails, firm rules change, and past results do not promise future ones.

How the test works

Prices: real 1-minute futures bars for the Nasdaq-100 (NQ), S&P 500 (ES), Dow (YM), Russell 2000 (RTY), gold (GC) and crude oil (CL), whole 6 pm–5 pm New York sessions from October 2024 to October 2026 (499 sessions), the most-traded contract, adjusted at each roll. Ten years of Nasdaq-100 ETF minute prices (2016–2026) as a longer check, cut to what the futures actually paid.
Plans: profit target, trailing drawdown (end-of-day, intraday or static), daily loss limit, consistency rule, deadline and price from the help centers of Apex, Topstep, Take Profit Trader, MyFundedFutures, Tradeify and FundedNext, as published in autumn 2026 — 59 plans, 53 distinct rule sets.
Replay: the strategy trades minute by minute, one position at a time, sized by the dollars at risk at its stop (searched from $100 to $1,600 per plan). A challenge ends when it passes, fails or runs out of time; 30-day plans get the deadline’s sessions, no-deadline plans up to 250 sessions (about a year).
Odds: 2,000 sequences drawn from the real sessions in 5-session blocks for each combination, plus a challenge started on every real session and followed to the end of the data. Year 1 = sessions to October 21, 2025; year 2 = the rest.
Fees per pass: the challenge fees paid on average for each pass, failed tries included; monthly plans charged for every month started.
Baseline: the coin flip — the same trades and sizes in a random direction (averaged over 20 coins on no-deadline plans). A strategy worth paying for beats it clearly.
Instant funding: the first payout counts as the pass; one account a year followed through every payout at the trader’s 90% share.

Not investment advice

This is a study of past prices, published for education. Leveraged funds, options and futures can lose most of their value quickly, and a pattern seen in the past can break. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Decide with your own judgment, or with a licensed adviser.