1-Step vs. 2-Step vs. Instant Funding: A Full Comparison — Which Evaluation Model Should You Choose?

※ Profit targets, drawdown, splits, and fees change frequently by firm, plan, and promotion. Check each firm's official site for exact figures. (Last updated: June 20, 2026)

TL;DR: 1-Step passes "twice as often," Instant Funding has the most traps

Evaluation models fall broadly into 3 types. Independent data shows a clear gap between them.

• 1-Step pass rate 17.5%, 2-Step 9.1% (Swiset, 9,876 traders). 1-Step passes roughly twice as often
• However, that comes with a trade-off: 1-Step tends to have a stricter trailing drawdown
• Instant Funding has the most traps of all: high fees, low split, trailing drawdown, withdrawal restrictions
• The right model comes down to the type of drawdown, the consistency rule, and your own strategy — not the number of phases

1. How the 3 models work

※ FTMO offered only 2-Step for a long time, but began offering 1-Step (1-Step Challenge) as well starting February 2026. Its traditional 2-Step has Phase 1 at 10%, Phase 2 at 5%, daily loss 5%, max loss fixed at 10%, minimum 4 trading days, split 80% → scaling to 90%.

2. Independent data: 1-Step has the edge

Actual data from the neutral tech company Swiset (August 2024–April 2025, 9,876 traders):

• Overall failure rate is about 80%; for 2-Step, it's over 88%
• Passers reach the finish in an average of 6.43 days; failures drag on for 41.5 days. Winners get there fast; losers drag things out

(Source: FinanceFeeds / Swiset)

⚠️ Note: Some prop-firm-leaning media outlets claim "both formats have similar pass rates of around 5–10%." Independent data (Swiset) clearly shows 1-Step ahead — it's worth staying aware of the source when reading claims like this.

3. Pros and cons of each

1-Step

• ✅ Only one gate, so the pass rate is higher; fastest route to funding (2–3x faster than 2-Step)
• ❌ The profit target is compressed into a single phase, trailing drawdown tends to be stricter, and fees run somewhat higher

2-Step

• ✅ A lower target per phase (10% → 5%) suits steady traders. Phase 2's pass rate is 50–60% (since unstable traders have already been filtered out)
• ❌ Takes more time, and the combined target is higher overall

Instant Funding

• ✅ Starts immediately with no evaluation stress. Suited to experienced traders with a track record
• ❌ Fees run a hefty $300–$2,000, splits are low at 70–80%, trailing drawdown, no pass bonus, withdrawal fees, and no withdrawals until a minimum profit threshold, among other catches

4. The traps in Instant Funding (be careful)

Instant Funding looks "easy" but is actually the toughest by design.

• A double punch of high fees x low split. The structure claws back what you saved by skipping evaluation
• Trailing drawdown is the biggest trap: the floor ratchets up with profit, so even mid-winning-trade, a pullback can trigger the stop-out line
• Topstep has criticized this model, saying "the instant funding business model profits from upfront fees and trading volume, not long-term trader success" (Topstep)
• Some require a minimum profit of $500–$1,000 before you can withdraw

Real-world example: FundedNext Stellar Instant offers $5K/$10K/$20K accounts, 6% trailing max loss, starts at a 70% split, no pass bonus, and withdrawal fees up to 3.5% (FundedNext).

5. A single firm where you can compare all 3 models: Hantec Trader

• Express (1-Step): profit target 10%, daily loss 5%, max loss 6% (trails settled balance and locks to the starting balance once +6% is reached). Max loss locks to the starting balance on the first payout
• Enhanced (2-Step): 10% → 5%, daily loss 5%, static drawdown 10% (though max loss also locks to the starting balance on the first payout)
• Instant Funding: no evaluation, starts immediately, daily loss 6%, max loss 6% trailing (trails settled balance and locks at the starting balance), instant disqualification at 3% floating loss, max loss locks to the starting balance on the first payout, 80% split, EAs banned (manual only)

The same firm also has a 2-step EnhancedX (8% → 4%, static drawdown 8%, 35% consistency) and a 3-step Endurance (6% x 3, static drawdown 8%). For these two, the max-loss line doesn't move even after withdrawals. Split is a standard 80% across every plan.

→ Hantec Trader complete guide / Detailed comparison including Endurance

6. How to choose: "type of drawdown" matters more than phase count

The bottom line: the right model comes down to the type of drawdown, the consistency rule, and your own strategy — not the number of phases (FXIFY makes the same point).

• Trailing drawdown (common in 1-Step and Instant) has a blind spot where your buffer disappears after you're in profit
• Static drawdown (common in 2-Step) is easier to understand and keeps a stable buffer
• Choose the type that suits your own strategy's drawdown characteristics

FAQ

Q. Which passes more easily, 1-Step or 2-Step?

According to independent data (Swiset), 1-Step at 17.5% beats 2-Step at 9.1%, because there's only one gate to clear. However, 1-Step comes with a trade-off: the profit target is compressed and trailing drawdown tends to be stricter.

Q. Is Instant Funding easier?

If anything, it has more traps. High fees, a low split (70–80%), trailing drawdown, and withdrawal restrictions are designed to claw back what you save by skipping evaluation. It suits experienced traders with a track record, not beginners.

Q. Is 2-Step a waste of time and money?

Not necessarily. The target per phase is lower (10% → 5%), and Phase 2's pass rate is high. It suits cautious, steady traders. There's also a view that favors 2-Step from an expected-value standpoint.

Q. So how should I actually choose?

The right answer is to choose based on the type of drawdown (trailing vs. static), the consistency rule, and how well it fits your own strategy — not the number of phases. See the complete guide to drawdown types for more detail.

Reference links

• FinanceFeeds / Swiset — pass rates by phase
• Topstep — critique of Instant Funding
• FXIFY — 1-Step vs. 2-Step
• FundedNext — Instant vs. Challenge

Related tools on prop-memo.com

• 🛡️ Complete guide to drawdown types — trailing vs. static explained
• 📊 The real pass rates — the latest data calculated from our database
• 📘 The blueprint for passing a challenge — the foundation that works under any model
• 🔍 Compare and search plans — cross-compare by model and drawdown type