Orlando, FL, USA, October 27th, 2026, FinanceWire
The State of Futures Prop Trading 2026 report finds futures attracting more than twice the US search demand of forex prop firms, while evaluation costs and trading rules vary across providers.
US search demand for futures prop firms has increased by 108% compared with 2024, according to new research published by Prop Firm Compare.
The first edition of The State of Futures Prop Trading examines search interest, evaluation pricing and trading conditions across 29 active futures prop firms. It finds that futures prop firms now attract approximately 2.1 times the US search demand of forex prop firms.
Monthly US searches across a matched basket of 20 futures prop firm keywords averaged 11,282 between October 2025 and September 2026, compared with 5,420 during 2024.
Searches across the equivalent forex keyword basket fell by 10% over the same period, from an average of 6,125 to 5,490 per month.
The difference was greater for searches containing “best”. The report recorded approximately 1,800 monthly US searches for “best futures prop firms”, compared with 400 for “best forex prop firms”.
Established forex brands enter the futures market
The research found that seven of the 29 active firms analysed, or 24%, originated in forex or CFD prop trading. These include FTMO, FundedNext, E8 Markets and Goat Funded Futures.
The findings also highlight the relative youth of the market, with 11 of the 29 firms having launched in 2023 or later.
Kane Simons, Founder of Prop Firm Compare, said: “Forex prop firms attracted more search demand than futures prop firms in 2024. Our latest research shows that position has reversed, with futures now attracting more than twice the demand across the keywords we track.
“Established forex and CFD brands are entering the futures market too. That gives traders more choice, but it also makes it more important to understand how each firm’s prices, rules and payout conditions compare.”
Average $50,000 evaluation costs $135 before discounts
Across the 27 firms offering a $50,000 evaluation, the cheapest available evaluation at each firm cost an average of $135 at list price. Applying published discount codes and current sales reduced the average to $95.
List prices ranged from $49 for Topstep’s monthly evaluation to $245 at IQ Capital.
The report found that the average cheapest single-attempt route to a funded $50,000 account, including evaluation and activation fees, cost $201. This excludes resets and monthly renewals, which can increase the amount a trader ultimately pays.
Activation fees remained present on at least one account at 59% of the firms analysed.
Consistency rules apply at almost every firm
Consistency rules were found at 27 of the 29 firms, representing 93% of the sample. These rules typically limit how much of a trader’s total profit can come from a single trading day.
End-of-day drawdown was offered by 90% of firms, while 28% offered intraday trailing drawdown on at least one account. Firms may offer more than one drawdown model across their programmes.
Just over half of the firms, 52%, offered an instant-funded account that bypasses the traditional evaluation process.
On each firm’s fastest account, the minimum number of trading days before first payout eligibility averaged 3.7 days. This measures eligibility to request a payout, rather than the time taken to receive payment, and remains subject to other account conditions.
Report calls for greater transparency on trader outcomes
The report also highlights limited public disclosure of evaluation pass rates and payout outcomes.
Earn2Trade’s published 2025 figures showed an evaluation pass rate of approximately 8.9%, while 18% of funded accounts made at least one withdrawal. These figures relate to Earn2Trade and should not be treated as industry-wide averages.
Kane added: “An evaluation’s headline price only tells part of the story. Activation fees, recurring charges, drawdown rules and payout requirements can all affect the overall cost and experience.
“We would also like to see more firms publish comparable pass-rate and payout data. Traders should be able to assess the conditions they are signing up to alongside clearer information about outcomes.
“We will update the report quarterly so readers can track changes in pricing, rules and products.”
The full report and downloadable datasets are available at: https://propfirm.compare/state-of-futures-prop-trading
Methodology
Search findings use Ahrefs US monthly search volumes from January 2024 to September 2026, comparing matched baskets of 20 non-brand keywords for futures and forex prop firms. Growth figures compare the 2024 monthly average with the average for October 2025 to September 2026. Search volumes measure search interest, rather than trader numbers or market revenue.
Firm-level findings cover 29 active futures prop firms. The report displays a firm-data update of 20 October 2026. Database-linked figures update as records change, while other firms retain values checked on 1 October 2026.
Pricing uses the cheapest listed $50,000 evaluation at each eligible firm. Cost-to-funded figures use the cheapest single-attempt evaluation-plus-activation route, which may involve a different plan. Rule percentages indicate whether a firm offers a feature on at least one account.
About Prop Firm Compare
Prop Firm Compare is a futures prop trading comparison website providing research, firm profiles, and tools to help users compare evaluation prices, trading rules, platforms, and payout conditions.
Contact
CEO
Kane Simons
Prop Firm Compare
press@propfirm.compare
Disclaimer: The views, suggestions, and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Unique Analyst journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article.