🤖#EAs & automation
37 articles
How to connect multiple prop firm accounts at once in NinjaTrader: running FTMO Futures and FundedNext Futures on a single NinjaTrader [September 2026]
Tradovate-based futures props like FTMO Futures and FundedNext Futures each issue a separate NinjaTrader login per firm. This walks through the exact steps used to connect accounts from multiple firms at once on a single NinjaTrader 8 (turning on Multi-provider in Settings and adding a 'NinjaTrader' connection for each firm).
ELDRA × AI Agents for Beginners: From Chatting to Setup, Safety Guards, and Backtesting
A beginner-friendly, step-by-step guide to using the semi-discretionary EA 'ELDRA' with an AI agent (Claude Code) and prop-memo's MCP. Covers connecting, checking whether your strategy can be built, safety guards matched to prop firm rules, creating a .set file, automating backtests, and optimization pitfalls.
[September 2026] We Calculated BluSky's Expected Value: The 3-Stage Model Favors Propel (30OFF), +$2,988/Year at Zero Edge
We compared the three plans (Launch, Propel, Orbit) at futures prop BluSky Trading using a Monte Carlo simulation run for one year, from evaluation through payout. Verified pricing, reset fees, the Buffer Zone, and payout terms on the official help center and pricing page on September 25, 2026. It's a 3-stage model — Evaluation → Buffer Zone → Sim Funded — and failing the Buffer Zone doesn't send you back to redo the evaluation. At 0.30 lots and zero edge, Propel $50K (code 30OFF brings it to $112/month) is best at +$2,988/year. Orbit's 30-day deadline is a heavy burden, and it comes out negative at zero edge.
[September 2026] Calculating Bulenox's Expected Value: Every Plan Is Now One-Time Payment. At Zero Edge, End-of-Day Momentum Wins; With an Edge, Qualification Wins
A Monte Carlo comparing futures prop firm Bulenox's $50K plans (Qualification and Momentum, each available in trailing and end-of-day variants) over a full year from evaluation through payouts. Confirmed on the official pricing page, help center, and fee schedule on September 25, 2026. The monthly subscription model is gone — every plan is now a one-time payment. At 0.30 lots and zero edge, Momentum (end-of-day) comes out best at +$2,047/year; with 'medium' edge, Qualification leads at +$25,529. Automated trading is allowed only for self-built tools — commercial or shared tools are banned.
[September 2026] We Calculated Funded Futures Network (FFN)'s Expected Value: Both Plans Negative at Zero Edge, STEADY Wins With Edge Thanks to Faster Payouts
We compared futures prop firm Funded Futures Network (FFN)'s two plans (Standard MAX and STEADY) with a 1-year Monte Carlo simulation running from evaluation through payout. Pricing, reset fees, buffer requirements, and payout conditions confirmed on the official help center and pricing page on September 25, 2026. At 0.30 lots and zero edge, both are negative: Standard MAX at −$312/year, STEADY at −$516/year. The requirement to build a $2,000 + $500 buffer on the funded account before any payout is the biggest drag. With edge, STEADY pulls ahead since it drops the consistency rule after passing and allows daily payouts.
How to Automate Trading at a Futures Prop Firm: 3 Routes — NinjaTrader, TradingView, and APIs — and the Steps to Get a Bot Running on FTMO Futures (September 2026)
To automate trading at a futures prop firm, you can't use an MT5 EA — you need NinjaTrader's NinjaScript, a TradingView alert plus a relay service, or a given firm's API. This article covers the differences between the three approaches, which firms support which one, the exact steps the site owner took to get a NinjaTrader bot running on an FTMO Futures evaluation account, the coding pitfalls that trip people up (bar timing, time zones, forced liquidation, contract months), and the terms-of-service traps to watch for.
[September 2026] Expected Value Summary: 5 Futures Prop Firms Where Self-Built Bots Are Allowed — TradeDay and Topstep Win at Zero Edge, Bulenox/Topstep/Tradeify Win With Edge
A summary comparing $50K accounts at 5 futures prop firms where automated trading is allowed 'self-built only, with conditions' (Bulenox, Tradeify, TradeDay, The Trading Pit, Topstep), run through identical Monte Carlo simulations. At 0.30 lots, one micro gold trade per day, over 1 year: at zero edge, TradeDay Quick Pay Intraday (+$2,522) and Topstep (+$2,519) are tied for the top. At 'medium' edge, Bulenox Qualification (+$25,529), Topstep (+$24,982), and Tradeify Select Daily (+$24,218) lead. None of them reach Category A's (fully automated OK) leader, FTMO Futures Pro (+$4,836 at zero edge). The Trading Pit is the only one that explicitly allows VPS; TradeDay and Topstep ban it.
[September 2026] Expected Value Roundup: 6 Futures Prop Firms That Allow Automated Trading | FTMO Futures Pro Wins at Zero Edge and With an Edge
A roundup comparing every plan at 6 futures prop firms that officially allow automated trading (FTMO Futures, FundedNext Futures, MyFundedFutures, Lucid Trading, BluSky, FFN) under the same Monte Carlo conditions. At $50K, 0.30 lots, 1 micro gold trade a day, over 1 year: at zero edge, FTMO Futures Pro wins with +$4,836 a year, followed by BluSky Propel at +$2,988. At 'medium' edge, FTMO Pro still wins at +$26,306, but FFN STEADY, MFFU Rapid EOD, and Lucid Daily all cluster around $24,000. Only FTMO and FundedNext explicitly allow VPS.
[September 2026] I Calculated The Trading Pit Futures's (Futures Prime) Expected Value | A $99 One-Time Fee Nets +$1,345/Year at Zero Edge, and Own EAs + VPS Are Explicitly Allowed
I calculated the expected value of The Trading Pit's futures challenge, Futures Prime $50K, with a year-long Monte Carlo simulation from evaluation through payouts. Confirmed on the official futures page and help center on September 25, 2026. $99 one-time fee, $79 reset, 30-day evaluation. At 0.30 lots: +$1,345/year at zero edge, +$21,491/year at 'medium' edge. It's one of the few futures prop firms that explicitly allows both your own EA and a VPS, but its Trustpilot rating is suspended for violating guidelines.
TradeDay Expected Value, Calculated (September 2026) | At Zero Edge, Quick Pay Intraday Nets +$2,522/Year - But Gains Plateau, and VPS Is Banned
We ran a one-year Monte Carlo simulation from evaluation to payout for TradeDay's $50K plans (Quick Pay Intraday, Quick Pay EOD, Fast Pass EOD), a futures prop firm. Confirmed against the official pricing card and help center on September 25, 2026. The monthly fee only applies during evaluation and stops once you pass; there's no activation fee and no daily loss limit. At 0.30 lots and zero edge, Quick Pay Intraday comes out best among Category B firms (self-built automation only) at +$2,522/year. That said, the profit split is 50%, and the sim account is capped at $10,000 in cumulative profit, so even with edge you're looking at only around +$8,000/year. VPS is banned, and so are off-the-shelf bots.
[September 2026] We calculated Tradeify's expected value | At zero edge all 3 formats give a small profit; with an edge, Select Daily wins
A one-year Monte Carlo comparison of futures prop firm Tradeify's $50K plans (Growth, Select Flex, Select Daily), run from evaluation through payouts. Confirmed against the official pricing cards and help center on September 25, 2026. All plans are one-time purchases with no activation fee. At 0.30 lots and zero edge, the three are roughly even — Growth +$1,255, Select Daily +$1,132, Select Flex +$1,118 — but with a 'medium' edge, Select Daily, which pays out daily, leads at +$24,218. Running a bot requires proof of ownership (a live video of you personally launching the code), and using the same bot across multiple firms is prohibited.
BrightFunded, Measured: The Cheapest Loss-Room Unit Price on This Site — But That's the Price Before Add-Ons
Dubai-based BrightFunded, measured directly against the official comparison table and checkout across 3 plans and all 6 sizes on September 23, 2026. 2-Step Classic's fee per $1,000 of loss room is $57.0 — the cheapest of any plan listed on this site. But that price is before add-ons: +20% of the fee for a 90% profit split, +25% for weekly payouts, and stacking everything brings the total to 1.8x. On top of that, billing is in euros, and Trustpilot's rating is suspended while the official site keeps displaying '4.5.'
Funded Trader Markets (FTM), Measured Directly | Martingale Officially Allowed and Among the Cheapest Per-Dollar-of-Drawdown, But No Track Record to Back It Up
I measured Dubai-based prop firm Funded Trader Markets directly on September 23, 2026, pulling list prices for 5 programs across every size from the official purchase configurator. The firm officially allows martingale and layering within a single account, permits EAs on every account and every phase, and even allows copying from accounts at other firms — an unusually permissive setup. Its fee per $1,000 of loss allowance on 2 Step Plus is $99.8, among the cheapest of any firm listed on this site. On the other hand, its Trustpilot rating is suspended after fake reviews were removed, its IP/VPN restrictions are among the strictest in the industry, and there are multiple places on its own site where the wording contradicts itself, like 'up to 100% profit' vs. 'Up to 90%.'
[September 2026] I calculated FundedNext Futures' expected value — VPS and automated trading are explicitly allowed; go Legacy with an edge, Flex without one
Compared FundedNext Futures' 4 plans (Flex, Legacy, Rapid Pro, Rapid Daily) in a full year of Monte Carlo simulation from evaluation to payout. Confirmed prices, reset costs, max loss, and withdrawal conditions on the official help center on September 23, 2026. All plans are one-time purchases with no activation fee. At zero edge, only Flex $50K comes out positive at +$1,388/year; with an edge, Legacy pulls ahead thanks to its larger withdrawal cap. Covers how Flex and Rapid end an account after 5 payouts, plus a comparison against FTMO Futures and Topstep.
[September 2026] I Calculated Lucid Trading's Expected Value — At Zero Edge, Go Flex (With Daily Loss); With an Edge, Go Daily (No Payout Cap)
We compared Lucid Trading's 3 plans (Flex, Pro, Daily) with a 1-year Monte Carlo simulation running from evaluation through payout. Prices, reset fees, max loss, and payout conditions confirmed on the official Help Center and pricing page on September 23, 2026. All are one-time purchases with no activation fee. At zero edge, Flex $50K with a daily loss limit attached comes to +$2,152/year; with an edge, Daily — which has no payout cap — pulls ahead. Covers why adding a daily loss limit makes it cheaper, Daily's mandatory flat position around news releases, and the lack of any VPS policy.
[September 2026] We Calculated MyFundedFutures' Expected Value | Builder at Zero Edge, Rapid EOD (No Payout Cap) Once You Have an Edge
We compared MyFundedFutures' (MFFU) 4 plans (Builder, Rapid, Rapid EOD, Pro) with a Monte Carlo simulation running a full year from evaluation through payouts. Price, max loss, and payout conditions confirmed against the official help center and pricing pages on September 23, 2026. Since August 2026 it's a one-time purchase with no activation fee. At zero edge, Builder $50K comes out at +$1,658/year; with an edge, the uncapped Rapid EOD, Rapid, and Pro pull ahead. Also covers the fact that there's no VPS policy written anywhere, and that reset fees aren't disclosed.
MyFundedPerps Measured Firsthand | 3 Plans Are Rule-for-Rule Identical to Breakout Prop — the Difference Is Price and an Official API
On September 23, 2026, I measured every number for MyFundedPerps — the crypto perpetuals prop firm that joined the MyFundedFutures family — directly from the official site and documentation. The surprise: the profit target, max DD, and daily loss on its 3 plans match Breakout Prop's 3 plans exactly (9%/3%, 12%/5%, 10%/6%, daily loss 3% across the board). At list price it's 9% more expensive than Breakout; only during the 20% sale does it become 13% cheaper. The biggest differences are an official REST API and sandbox, and access to 127 symbols including gold and stocks. Track record, though, is close to zero — 37 Trustpilot reviews, profile opened September 2026 — and there's a trap where the max-loss line permanently locks to the starting balance after your first withdrawal.
FTMO Futures Complete Guide: Automated Trading and VPS Both Officially Allowed as FX Giant Launches Futures in September 2026
A hands-on check of FTMO's official pages for FTMO Futures, the futures prop program FTMO launched on September 1, 2026. Its forbidden-practices page explicitly states "Automated trading is permitted," making it one of the few firms that also explicitly permits VPS and VPN use. Covers full pricing for every size of Growth and Pro, how EOD trailing drawdown works, the consistency rule that only applies during evaluation, the JST close-out deadline, the three platforms (NinjaTrader, Tradovate, TradingView), and whether it's usable from Japan.
FTMO Futures vs Topstep: FTMO Wins on Expected Value, Topstep Wins on Monthly Cost. If You're Running a Bot, VPS Access Is the Deciding Factor [September 2026]
We re-confirmed the rules on both the futures prop leader Topstep and FTMO Futures, which entered the market in September 2026, on September 23, 2026, and compared them. The monthly fee is less than half at Topstep, but running the same lot size through evaluation to payout for a year gives FTMO Futures Pro the higher expected value ($50K, zero edge: +$4,836 vs. +$2,519). Covers activation fees, the fact that you can only withdraw 50% of the balance, an optional daily loss limit, resets that shift your billing date, VPS eligibility, and running a bot on a live account.
The5ers Futures vs FTMO Futures: Comparing Two FX Giants' Futures Launch by Automated Trading Policy [September 2026]
The5ers and FTMO have both launched futures products. On September 22, 2026 we measured prices and rules for every size on both official sites. The decisive difference is automated trading: The5ers' FAQ states outright, "algorithmic trading is strictly forbidden, and users will be banned from our programs," while FTMO states, "there is no reason to restrict discretionary trading, algorithmic trading, or EAs." FTMO also explicitly allows VPS and VPN, which puts it ahead of the dedicated futures firms if you plan to run an EA around the clock. We line both up against the same 26 US futures props on cost per unit of loss buffer, EOD drawdown, the scope of the consistency rule, and payout caps.
[September 2026 Edition] A Full Review of Automated-Trading Rules Across 28 Futures Prop Firms - Where Can You Actually Run a Bot, EA, or Copy Trade?
We reread the official help centers and terms of 28 US futures prop firms on September 21-22, 2026, and sorted their automated-trading policies into five tiers: fully automated OK / self-built only with conditions / semi-automated only / banned / not addressed. Bulenox has switched to banning commercial and shared bots, Lucid allows them, Apex now explicitly bans automated trading on all accounts, and Tradeify requires a live video of you activating the code yourself. Covers firms that ban VPS, how each firm defines HFT (100-300 trades/day, 10-second holds), and firms that have shut down or stopped selling accounts. We've also added the two big FX firms that entered futures - FTMO Futures (allows algos) and The5ers Futures (bans algos).
Which Hola Prime Plan Should You Buy? For EAs, the "2% Rule" Decides Everything
Hola Prime has five plans, and the right pick changes if you're running an EA (automated trading). The key is the "2% per trade idea" rule — it judges the stop-loss position at entry, not floating loss, and it only applies to funded accounts. Misread this and you'll throw away 30% of your lot size. We ran an actual strategy on real data across all four plans, and 1-Step Prime — the one with the heaviest target-to-max-loss ratio — came out on top in all three sub-periods. Also covers the per-instrument leverage (gold and indices at 10:1), and results from measuring instrument specs on our own account (Nikkei and Dow don't exist).
Only Two Prop Firms Can Actually Run Grid/Trailing-Repeat EAs: "Not Banned" and "Usable" Are Different Things
If you want to run a grid or trailing-repeat ("trailing stop and repeat" / トラリピ) type EA on a prop account, checking only whether the ban list mentions it doesn't tell you anything. What actually kills the account is the "floating-loss cap" and whether drawdown is measured on equity or on balance. City Traders Imperium's 1-Step is the unique combination of balance-based DD, no daily DD, off-the-shelf EAs allowed, and grid explicitly permitted. Fintokei doesn't list grid among its 9 banned practices, but off-the-shelf EAs aren't allowed and a combined 3% cap across all open positions becomes the real limit on how many grid levels you can run. A comparison table across 10 firms, plus the formula for working backward from the floating-loss cap to figure out how many levels you can stack. Confirmed against each firm's official help center on September 16, 2026.
Prop Firms That Allow Averaging Down (Nanpin): What the Rules Actually Ban Isn't 'Buying the Dip' — It's Increasing Lot Size
Averaging down (nanpin) and martingale are treated as completely different things under the rules. Funded7's Rule 4 explicitly bans 'increasing lot size from 1.0 → 1.5 → 2.0,' while explicitly allowing averaging down at the same or a reduced lot size. Fintokei lifted its martingale ban entirely in July 2025. Includes a quick-reference table of how 10 firms treat this, a formula for working backward from your floating-loss cap to the number of steps you can take, and why the room left right after the final step differs by 7.8x between averaging down and martingale even at the same 5 steps. Confirmed with each firm's official help center on September 16, 2026.
Funded7's Payout Was Held Under OREF "Rule 1" | Explaining the MIN(median×2.5, Q3+1.5×IQR) Consistency Review With a Real Review Email [September 2026]
A Funded7 payout request came back DELAYED for failing "Rule 1 (Consistency): Position Sizing" R1A. We break down the official FAQ's allowable threshold — MIN(median×2.5, Q3+1.5×IQR) — using real figures from a review email sent to this site's owner (median ¥1,240,946, IQR ¥17,094, threshold ¥1,274,058, largest position ¥1,294,723). Covers why keeping your lot size too consistent shrinks the threshold, why a fixed-lot BTC EA gets caught, how it differs from Rule 2/Rule 3, why profit isn't confiscated, and how to think about passing on the next review.
FundedNext Bans EAs/Automated Trading on Accounts $50K and Above (September 9, 2026): Which Accounts Are Affected, What Happens to Existing Accounts, and Where EA Traders Should Move
FundedNext's official help article "Is EA allowed in FundedNext?" was revised on September 9, 2026. Accounts of $50,000 and above — both challenge and Funded accounts — must now trade fully manually; EAs, bots, and automation tools are banned. EAs can only be used on MT4/MT5 accounts of $25K or less (with a separate usage fee). cTrader and Match-Trader remain fully banned as before. The effective date and whether it applies to existing accounts are not stated. What people running EAs on $100K accounts should do now, plus a comparison for switching to FTMO, Funding Pips, Fintokei, or Funded7.
[September 2026] Which Prop Firm Should You Buy Right Now | An "Expected Payout" Ranking Split Between EA Traders and Manual Traders (Updated After the FundedNext EA Ban and Moneta's Debut)
As of September 9, 2026, ranking "which prop firm to buy right now," split between people running EAs on $100K accounts and manual/semi-discretionary Japanese traders. Reflects FundedNext's EA ban on $50K+, the debut of Moneta Funded, The5ers' yellow card (lifted September 25), and FundedElite's Trustpilot suspension. Compares $100K prices, profit splits, and EA conditions side by side for FTMO, Funding Pips, Fintokei, E8 Pro, Funded7, Hantec, Fundora, and Alpha Capital, plus which firms to wait on and which coupons work this month. Updated September 13, 2026 to reflect E8 Markets' full relaunch (all plans now one-step, new E8 Pro) and a re-investigation of Alpha Capital (full ban on fully automated EAs, Trustpilot suspension, price changes).
I Checked 10 Prop Firms on Swapping EAs Mid-Challenge: FundingPips Requires Proof of Ownership for Self-Built EAs, Funded7 Flags You by Statistics If You Change Instruments [September 2026]
Switching from a trend-following EA to a mean-reversion EA is not a rule violation at most prop firms. Only two firms clearly ban it: FundedNext and TradingCult. Funded7, however, judges by the statistics of notional value rather than logic, so changing instruments or lot size can get you flagged. I also confirmed in the official help centers that FundingPips requires proof of ownership for fully automated self-built EAs, and explicitly bans connecting via VPN/VPS — though that ban sits in a single line inside the identity-verification section, in contrast to FundedElite, which allows VPS with prior notice.
Prop Firms That Won't Let You Change Strategy: Official Rules Checked | TradingCult Bans EAs Outright, Funded7 Disqualifies Running the Same EA Across Multiple Accounts [September 2026]
TradingCult bans EA and bot use outright, and a violation is a hard breach. The firm and FundedElite also explicitly ban 'account rolling.' At Funded7, even your own EA gets you disqualified for Group Trading if its results correlate too closely with another trader's. SuperFunded allows news trading freely during the evaluation but bans it within ±10 minutes only at the Funded stage, and FundedElite's strategy risk limit only applies at the funded stage — this article rounds up 9 firms whose rules change between the challenge and funded stages, based on each firm's official FAQ.
Can You Change Strategy Mid-Way? | I Checked 20 Firms' Consistency Rules and Found They Go in Opposite Directions [September 2026]
FundedNext explicitly states you must 'maintain the same strategy through your challenge and Funded account,' banning switching from an EA that passed the challenge to manual trading. Fintokei, meanwhile, states plainly it has no consistency rule and won't add one retroactively. Even within one firm, Hantec's Enhanced has no restriction while EnhancedX caps you at 35% — opposite treatment. Here's what to check before changing your method, across 20 firms.
The Same Strategy Can Take 3x Longer Depending on Where You Run It: Testing 8 Firms' Rules Against a Mechanical Strategy [Analysis]
Profit targets and max DD line up almost identically across firms, yet running the same strategy through their rules stretches the cycle time from 17.2 days to 59.6 days — a 3.5x spread. The cause is the '1% risk per trade' rule. Pass rates barely differ (33.7–38.7%), while firms with a 10% Phase 1 target are 5 points worse off at the first stage, and a 60% profit split cuts expected funded-stage income by 40%. Also checks Hantec's 3-minute rule, which is actually a ratio condition — 'net profit from trades closed under 3 minutes is 30% or more of total' — against 3,826 real trades' holding-time distribution.
Is a Challenge "Expected-Value Positive Just by Buying It"? I Built a Coin-Toss EA and Backtested It 16 Times [Analysis]
Placing SL/TP at spread x 40 makes the cost ratio independent of the currency pair. Verified with an exact solution plus 24 real EA runs, a single challenge's expected value comes out to +¥119,000 against a ¥108,800 fee (95% CI +¥18,000 to +¥381,000). Raising the number of daily attempts up to the daily loss limit shrinks the time to resolution from 139 days to 7 days without lowering the pass rate, and across multiple accounts, simply using a different random seed per account shifts the probability of finishing positive from 56% to 98%. The one remaining hole is a stop-loss getting jumped by a gap.
Running a Python Trading Bot on SuperFunded × TradeLocker in Live Production: The Full MQL-Free Tech Stack
Automated trading is possible even on TradeLocker-based prop firms that don't support MT4/MT5. Using the official Python API (the tradelocker package) plus a serverless Cloud Run Job setup, we're running a bot in live production on a SuperFunded account. Full disclosure of the tech stack, including idempotent design, double-order protection, and running on GCP's free tier.
Multiple Prop Accounts: 'Rotation Diversification' Beats 'Full Mirroring' | Correlation Risk and the Rulebook Trap
Mirroring the same EA across every account feels like diversification, but it actually concentrates correlation risk by a multiple of your account count. This article explains, with concrete examples, why a rotation-based approach — fixed lot size, rotating accounts on drawdown — lowers your risk of ruin, plus the copy-trading rule traps and detection risks involved.
Bulenox Complete Guide (2026 Edition): A Deep Dive Into the Futures Prop Firm With Fully Free EA and Automated Trading
A complete breakdown of Bulenox, Trustpilot 4.8 stars and one of the only futures prop firms with fully free EA/bot/copier trading. Covers the Qualification → Master Account (Option 1/2) structure, trailing drawdown, the 40% consistency rule, Wednesday payouts, and the KEP91 coupon for up to 91% off — written for Japanese traders.
[2026 Update] Futures Prop Automated Trading Policy Comparison | EA/Bot OK or NG at 9 Firms
A full breakdown of the EA/bot/algo trading policies at Bulenox, MyFundedFutures, Topstep, Apex, Tradeify, Lucid, TPT, Top One, and YRM Prop. Covers whether a 'set-and-forget EA' is allowed on a funded account, the 10-second rule, and copy-trading support, explained from a Japanese trader's perspective.
Can You Use an EA at a Prop Firm? A Deep Dive Into Automated-Trading Rules at All 19 Firms + How to Use ELDRA
A quick-reference table of 19 prop firms' rules on off-the-shelf EAs, self-built EAs, source-code requirements, and tick-scalping restrictions. Covers MT4/MT5 support, a TradeLocker-API Python bot case study, and how to use prop-memo.com's EA Tracker together with the semi-discretionary EA ELDRA.