1-Step vs 2-Step: which evaluation track fits your style
Looser drawdowns vs faster funding. A side-by-side breakdown to help you pick the program that matches how you actually trade.
Both programs lead to the same funded account. The difference is in how you prove you deserve it. Pick the wrong one and you'll feel like you're fighting the rules instead of trading.
The headline comparison
Before diving into nuance, here's what's different at a glance:
| Parameter | 2-Step Professional | 1-Step Accelerated |
|---|---|---|
| Profit target | 10% then 5% | 10% |
| Max daily drawdown | 4% / 5% | 3% |
| Max overall drawdown | 8% / 10% | 6% |
| Minimum trading days | 3 per step | 3 |
| Consistency rule | None during eval | 45% (soft) |
| FX leverage | 1:50 | 1:30 |
| Funded daily DD | 5% | 3% |
| Funded max DD | 10% | 7% |
The 1-Step is faster but tighter. The 2-Step is slower but more forgiving. That's the trade-off in one line.
When the 1-Step makes sense
The 1-Step Accelerated is the right choice if you're a disciplined intraday trader with a small, consistent edge. The 10% target is meaningful but achievable in a month if you're hitting steady 1-2% profitable days. You skip the second phase, get to a funded account sooner, and start the payout clock earlier.
What you give up: room for error. 3% daily DD and 6% max DD is tight. A single oversized trade can take you out. There's no "give the position room to breathe" — every entry has to be calculated against the tighter risk envelope.
The 45% consistency rule on the 1-Step is a soft guideline, not a hard fail, but it's a real constraint. If you tend to have one breakout day per week that makes up most of your weekly P&L, the 1-Step will keep flagging you for review. Spread the profitability or it'll be a friction point in the funded stage too.
When the 2-Step makes sense
The 2-Step Professional is the more flexible track. You get more drawdown room (4% / 5% daily, 8% / 10% max), no formal consistency rule during evaluation, and slightly higher FX leverage in the funded stage.
The trade-off is the second phase. After hitting 10% in Phase 1, you have to hit 5% in Phase 2 — and the drawdown rules actually loosen for Phase 2 (5% daily, 10% max) because the assumption is you've already proven you can trade and now you're proving you can trade consistently after a profitable run.
Why this matters: traders who tighten up after a win are exactly who funding firms want. If you can scale your aggression to your current P&L position, you'll thrive in the 2-Step structure. If you tend to "swing for the fences" after a win, the second phase will be uncomfortable.
Cost and capital comparison
At equivalent account sizes, the 1-Step is more expensive — you're paying for the faster path to funding.
| Account size | 2-Step fee | 1-Step fee | Premium |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10K | $125 | $155 | +24% |
| $25K | $250 | $315 | +26% |
| $50K | $465 | $475 | +2% |
| $100K | $695 | $825 | +19% |
For most traders, the 23% premium at smaller account sizes is worth it if you genuinely believe you'll skip the second phase. For larger accounts the math gets even better — the premium narrows because the base fee is already large.
Also: the 1-Step only goes up to $100K. If you want a $200K funded account, the 2-Step is your only path.
The self-assessment
Honest answers to these questions will tell you which track to pick:
- You've been profitable in live trading for 6+ months
- Your typical winning day is 0.5%–1.5%, not 5%+
- You can size down without fighting the urge to make up the difference
- You want a $100K account or smaller
- You're newer to systematic risk management and want more buffer
- You occasionally have outsized winning days you'd rather not be flagged for
- You want a $200K funded account
- You value the higher 1:50 FX leverage in the funded stage
