Profit Targets in Prop Trading: What They Actually Mean

Once you know the account size, the target is a dollar amount. An 8% target on a $100,000 challenge means $8,000 of qualifying profit; on a $25,000 challenge it means $2,000. The percentage is the same, the dollar amount changes.

Most prop firms set the target from the account's opening balance, not its current one. If the account goes down 2% in the first few days, the target doesn't move: a 10% target on a $100,000 challenge still means reaching $110,000, even after you drop to $98,000.

Obviously.

But it means you aren't trying to make 10% from wherever you are. You have to get back to where you started, and then make the target.

There's no standard profit target in prop trading. Different programs from the same firm can have wildly different targets.

As of October 2026, Moneta Funded sets a 10% target on its 1-Step evaluation, and 5% for Phase 1 and 10% for Phase 2 of its 2-Step. Its Instant and Instant Pro accounts don't use a profit target at all. FundingPips asks for 8% in Phase 1 and 5% in Phase 2 of its 2-Step Standard challenge, 6% in both phases of its 2-Step Pro, and 12% on its 1-Step Flex.

They're good examples because they show how little it means to say “two-step challenges have lower profit targets” or “one-step challenges are harder”.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

You actually have to look at the programs.

Say you're weighing two $100,000 challenges. One has a 6% profit target. The other has 10%.

No-brainer, right? The 6% challenge is obviously better.

Now add the loss limits. The 6% challenge gives you a 4% maximum loss. The 10% challenge gives you 10%. Which one is better now?

The trader on the 6% challenge has $6,000 to make and not much room for error. The trader on the 10% challenge has $10,000 to make and a lot more room to breathe. A lower profit target doesn't necessarily mean an easier challenge. Judge each one on its target against its loss allowance, not on the target alone.

Profit targets become countdowns.

You start a challenge needing 8%. After a couple of days you're 2% up, with 6% to go. A winning trade takes you to 3.5%. Now you're not thinking about the trade in front of you. You're thinking about the 4.5% between you and passing.

This is where sensible trading plans start to change. The trader who normally risks 0.5% starts risking 1%. A setup they'd normally skip starts to look good. They had a good morning, so one more trade can't hurt, right? They're nearly there!

None of that has anything to do with the market. It's all a reaction to a number on a screen, and the market doesn't know you only need 2.3% to pass.

Say your strategy normally makes 3% a month. That's fine. A repeatable 3% a month with a controlled drawdown would interest a lot of traders.

Now put that strategy into a challenge with a 10% target. The strategy hasn't changed. You haven't suddenly found one that makes 10% in a week.

Something else has to change.

Most of the time, that something is risk. Bigger positions. More trades. Holding on to trades you'd normally have closed. You've let the target lead you, instead of the strategy that made you buy the account in the first place.

A better question is “How long would this target normally take me?” If the honest answer is three months, plan for three months. Don't build a risk plan around a version of you that's three times as profitable because there's a funded account at the end of it.

Targets also get harder when you start badly.

Take a $100,000 challenge with a 10% target. You need the balance to reach $110,000. If your first few trades drop it to $96,000, you now need $14,000 to get there. The target is the same. The road to it is longer.

This is where traders often panic and try to get back to even as fast as possible. The account is down 4%, so they try to make 4% in the next one or two trades, and voila, the account is blown.

No rule says you have to recover quickly. If your challenge has no time limit, going slower after a drawdown is usually far more sensible than taking on more risk. Moneta Funded and FundingPips both currently run their main evaluations with no time limit, which at least removes the pressure to produce numbers on demand.

This one you need to know before you start. The target may not be the only thing you need to pass. A firm may also require minimum profitable days, minimum trading days, identity verification or other conditions before your account moves on.

Moneta Funded, for example, currently requires three profitable days of at least 0.5% each to pass its 1-Step and 2-Step phases. You might hit the target quickly and still have work to do.

That's fine if you knew about it. It's a problem if you hit the target, think you're done, and then start taking unnecessary trades to satisfy a rule you've only just learned about.

Read the passing criteria for the phase before you place your first trade.

Most of the time, a close target isn't a reason to change anything.

Say you're 9% up on a challenge that needs 10%. It's very tempting to think:

“I can risk 1% and finish this today.”

But if 1% is double your normal size, you've changed your strategy at exactly the moment the pressure to succeed is highest. Lose that trade and you need 2%. Size up again and it can all fall apart quickly.

That last 1% doesn't know you're close. If your normal trade risks 0.5%, you can still risk 0.5%. Your challenge finishes when your strategy gets there.

That's probably the healthiest way to look at a profit target. It gives your evaluation an end-point. It tells the firm what it needs to see in terms of results. What it shouldn't do is change how you trade to get there.