Consistency rules: evaluation gate or payout gate?
A 40% rule on an evaluation is not the same problem as a 40% rule on a funded account. One can keep you from passing. The other can keep you from withdrawing.
The short answer
Start here
Do not ask whether a firm has “a consistency rule” as one yes-or-no fact. Ask for the percentage, formula, reset point, consequence, plan and phase. A flat badge can send you toward the wrong finish line.
What matters
- The usual denominator is total net profit, but the exact formula must come from the plan.
- Crossing a gate often raises a target or delays a payout; it is not automatically an account failure.
- No published percentage is not proof that no rule exists.
01
The arithmetic
A common form is biggest winning day divided by current total profit. If the allowed share is 40%, total profit must be at least the biggest day divided by 0.40. The same arithmetic can apply to an evaluation target or to profit accumulated since a funded payout, depending on the plan.
The threshold is not permission to manufacture extra trades. It is a statement of where the account stands under the published formula.
02
Phase changes the consequence
On an evaluation, a consistency gate may increase the profit required before the account passes. On a funded account, it may hold a payout request until the ratio is back inside the limit. Some plans reset the calculation after a payout. Others use a different window.
That is why the firm logo is not enough. The exact product and lifecycle phase belong beside the percentage.
03
The common mistake
Do not read “no consistency on the evaluation” as “no consistency once funded.” Do not read an unpublished evaluation figure as confirmed none. When the source does not resolve the phase, the honest answer is to ask the firm.
Worked example
Assumptions, not a forecastA 40% consistency gate
- Biggest winning day: $1,000.
- Current total profit: $1,600.
- Published maximum share: 40%.
Required total profit is $1,000 ÷ 0.40 = $2,500. At $1,600, the account is $900 below that arithmetic threshold.
The $900 is not a trading instruction. It states the gap under the hypothetical formula. New risk can also reduce total profit or breach another rule.
Published-term reference
Published consistency notes by firm
Alphabetical phase-aware reference. “Not published” stays unresolved rather than being converted into “none.”
-
Alpha Futures
Evaluation % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation 40%; funded no structured percentage. 40% on Advanced Evaluations; 40% on Zero Qualified and 20% on Direct Qualified (since last payout); none on Advanced Qualified. Breach delays, no fail.
-
Apex Trader Funding
Funded % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation no structured percentage; funded 50%. Funded PA only (eval has none): no single day may be 50%+ of total profit since last payout; over 50% blocks the payout request.
-
FundedNext
Evaluation % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation 40%; funded no structured percentage. Largest single day must stay at/under 40% of total profit; a breach raises the target, it does not fail you.
-
Lucid Trading
Funded % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation no structured percentage; funded 40%. Largest single-day profit / total; payout gate, resets after each payout. LucidPro 40%, LucidFlex 50% (eval), LucidDirect 20%.
-
MyFundedFutures
Evaluation % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation 50%; funded no structured percentage. Pro and Rapid: 50% in the evaluation only, none once funded. Builder is the reverse — none in the evaluation, 50% at the payout stage. Verified 2026-07-25.
-
Take Profit Trader
Evaluation % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation 50%; funded no structured percentage. 50% rule on the Test only (no single day > 50% of net profit); breach adjusts the threshold, no fail. None once funded.
-
Topstep
Evaluation % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation 50%; funded no structured percentage. Best single day should stay below 50% of your Profit Target; exceeding it raises the Consistency Target (gates payout), does not fail the account.
-
Tradeify
Funded % recordedStandard-plan phase record: evaluation no structured percentage; funded 35%. Payout gate (does not block trading): Select eval 40%, Growth funded 35%, Lightning 20% pre-Sep-12-2025 then scaling; Growth eval none.
Reference data comes from firms’ published terms. Structured rule sheet checked 2026-06-23. Terms change. Confirm the current plan and phase at the firm.
Tool tutorial
Check the exact rule in Rulebook
- 01
Enter your biggest-day percentage and the rest of your operating pattern.
- 02
Build the brief across the covered firms, then find the firm you are evaluating.
- 03
Read the consistency flag and the stated product or phase uncertainty.
- 04
Open the official source and confirm the exact plan and phase before relying on the percentage.
Put the rule in the correct phase
Rulebook screens the behavior across covered firms, links structured flags to published sources and names phase uncertainty it cannot resolve.
Free account required. Rules change, so confirm the live source before relying on the result.
Evidence boundary
What NANO can and cannot know
NANO can screen structured published terms. It cannot resolve a plan the source does not identify, monitor a live account, or promise how a firm will handle a request.
Common questions
- Does crossing a consistency percentage fail the account?
- Often it does not. It may raise the evaluation target or delay payout eligibility. The exact consequence is plan-specific and must be read from the rule.
- Which firms have no consistency rule?
- That question needs a plan and phase. Several firms have none in one phase and a gate in another. The reference below preserves that distinction instead of publishing one flat list.