FTMO vs Audacity Capital: which rulebook fits your trading

Two different tests

A conventional evaluation asks one question: can this method produce a defined return inside a defined risk budget, inside a defined window? An allocation programme asks a different question: can this method trade a fixed allowance for a defined period without breaching it?

The difference sounds small and it changes the optimal behaviour. A target rewards pushing toward a number; a period rewards not losing the account while the clock runs. The first encourages a trader to take the trades that move the number; the second encourages a trader to take only the trades that justify their risk.

FTMO's structure is the more familiar one: two evaluation phases, a verification stage, a static floor and a target for each stage. Audacity's structure is a single allocation with a fixed loss allowance and a minimum trading period, after which profit is split. Neither is harder in the abstract; they punish different mistakes.

Both firms use a static failure point rather than a trail, which is the feature that makes them comparable at all. A constant risk unit stays valid on both, and the daily calculation is a check rather than a recalculation.

The rulebooks side by side

The table summarises the published shape. The evaluation model and the payout rows are the ones that decide how the product feels in practice.

Three rows need a document rather than a table: the daily stop, the consistency condition and the fee. All three are programme-specific on the Audacity side, and all three decide the shape of the plan. The comparison is therefore only meaningful once a named programme has been chosen.

A target against a period

A target gives a trader a finish line. That is useful for pacing and dangerous for judgement: a trader who is close to the number will take a trade the plan would otherwise reject, because the marginal trade appears to cost little and gain a lot. The behaviour is common and the rulebook invites it.

A period gives a trader a horizon instead. There is no number to reach, so the marginal trade has no special value, and the rational behaviour is to take only setups that justify their risk. That is a healthier incentive and it requires more discipline, because nothing external marks progress.

The practical consequence is a different calendar. A target-based attempt should be planned backwards from the number: how many net winners, at what unit, across how many sessions. A period-based attempt should be planned forwards from the allowance: how much can be lost per month, at what unit, across how many months.

FTMO's three-stage path adds a third planning layer, because each stage resets the target while the floor stays fixed. A trader who plans only the first phase usually arrives at the second with less room than expected and no plan for the reset.

That reset is worth modelling explicitly. If phase one consumes $2,000 of a $5,000 floor, phase two starts with $3,000 of room and a fresh target, which is a materially tighter product than the one that was purchased. The plan for phase two has to be written before phase one ends, while the numbers are still a choice rather than a consequence.

Static floors and fixed allowances

A static floor measured from the starting balance is fixed for the attempt. On $50,000 with a 10% floor the failure point is $45,000, and profit adds room above it rather than moving the failure point. That makes the risk unit easy to hold constant.

A fixed loss allowance behaves the same way. On $50,000 with a $5,000 allowance the failure point is $45,000 and it does not move. The terminology differs; the arithmetic does not.

What differs is what happens after a payout. A programme that resets the allowance gives the trader the same room for the next cycle; a programme that keeps the failure point where it is makes the second cycle harder. FTMO's seasoning period and Audacity's payout cycle both imply a second cycle, so the reset question belongs in the comparison.

Both structures remove the discipline a trail imposes, so both need a self-imposed drawdown stop. Set it at a third of the floor from the equity high and the account keeps gains the rulebook would allow it to give back.

A $50,000 account on each

On FTMO, assume a 10% floor and an 8% target for phase one. The failure point is $45,000 and the target is $54,000. A $250 unit tolerates twenty losses, which is beyond a normal distribution, so the binding constraints are the target and the calendar rather than survival.

On the allocation programme, assume a $5,000 allowance and a three-month period. There is no target; the account needs to be alive at the end with a positive return. A $250 unit tolerates twenty losses across the period, which is a generous budget and a demanding discipline, because nothing forces a trader to stop.

The difference in psychology is what most traders notice. On FTMO, progress is visible as a number and the temptation is to press. On the allocation, progress is invisible until the payout request and the temptation is to overtrade, because activity feels like work.

Both accounts need the same weekly routine: check the drawdown from the high, compare it with the self-imposed stop, and decide whether the week continues. On the target product that check is easy to skip because the number is moving; on the period product it is easy to skip because nothing is moving.

The routine is worth writing down in three lines: the drawdown as a percentage of the floor, the number of sessions traded, and the unit currently in use. If the first is rising while the third is unchanged, the plan has drifted, and the correction is a smaller size rather than a better setup.

Daily stops and their bases

FTMO's daily stop is equity-based, which means floating losses count as they occur. A position that is $1,200 underwater has consumed $1,200 of the day's allowance before it is closed. That produces better behaviour and tighter statements, and it requires the trader to watch open risk rather than realised results.

Audacity's daily rule is programme-specific. Where it exists, the basis has to be confirmed: equity or realised, and at what time it resets. Where it does not, the trader has to supply a limit, because a fixed allowance with no daily rule permits a single session to consume the programme.

A personal cap of three units is a sensible default on either. With a $250 unit that is $750, which is 1.5% of a $50,000 account and well inside any published limit. Three losses end the session, and a second session is allowed only if the weekly budget still has room.

The reset time is the detail that catches swing traders. A position carried across the roll can be attributed to either day, and the attribution decides whether a loss is a warning or a breach. If the rule is unclear, flatten before the roll.

Lot sizing and pip value

Forex sizing is pips × pip value × lots. On a standard lot of a USD-quoted major, one pip is about $10, so a 25-pip stop risks $250 and a $250 unit buys one lot. A 50-pip stop buys half a lot.

That $10 figure only holds for a dollar-quoted major. Yen pairs move the value with the exchange rate, crosses convert twice, and metals and indices are quoted in ticks rather than pips. Using one number across the board is the fastest way to be wrong about size on exactly the instruments that move most.

There is a quick sanity check before any trade: multiply the stop in pips by the pip value and confirm the product equals the intended dollar risk. If it does not, the lot count is wrong, and the mistake is cheaper to correct on a calculator than on a statement.

CFDs add a further variation, because an index or commodity CFD has its own tick behaviour and spread profile. A trader moving from a major pair to an index CFD without resizing is effectively increasing risk, even with the same lot count.

Add a buffer of ten to twenty percent for spread and slip. The fill is what the floor sees, and on a thin pair a slipped stop can consume one and a half units rather than one.

Consistency against a trading period

FTMO applies no consistency rule to the evaluation, so the profit can arrive in any shape. Audacity expresses its condition as a minimum trading period, which is a consistency requirement in a different form: the account has to be traded across time rather than in one burst.

Both approaches have the same purpose, which is to ensure the result is a process rather than a single position. The practical difference is that the period condition constrains the calendar while the consistency rule constrains the distribution. A trader can satisfy one and fail the other.

The test to run on your own record is the share of profit from the best day. Take sixty sessions, total the profit, and compute that share. Above a quarter, a distribution rule will bind if one applies; below, the shape is already suitable.

Even where no rule applies, a smoother distribution shortens the expected time to a payout because it reduces the chance of a drawdown that consumes the allowance late in the period.

MT4, MT5 and DXtrade

FTMO lists MT4, MT5, cTrader and DXtrade; Audacity lists MT4 and MT5. The overlap covers the two most widely used retail platforms, so a trader with an MT4 or MT5 workflow can move between the products without rebuilding anything.

DXtrade is the extra option on the FTMO side, a modern web-based platform with a cleaner interface than MT4 and a shorter learning curve than a full terminal. It suits a trader who wants execution without maintenance and does not depend on expert advisors.

cTrader is the level-based option, with depth of market and precise order handling. It suits a trader who manages positions at levels rather than at tickets, and it is the better choice for a method that depends on exact entries and exits.

Automation is the reason platform choice still matters. MT4 has the largest library of expert advisors, MT5 has a modern backtester but defaults to netting, and a strategy written for one does not run unchanged on the other. Settle the platform before the fee, not during the attempt.

One-off fees and profit shares

FTMO charges once per attempt. At an illustrative $450, three attempts cost $1,350 regardless of how long each takes. That makes patience affordable and shifts the cost of failure onto the retry count rather than the calendar.

Audacity's programmes may charge a one-off fee or take a share of profit instead. A profit-share arrangement defers the cost until the account earns, which suits a trader with limited capital, and it costs more over a successful year because the share is paid on every profitable cycle.

The break-even is simple: if the profit-share is twenty points higher than the upfront alternative, it is cheaper until cumulative profit reaches the point where the extra share equals the fee. A trader who expects a modest total return should prefer the share; one who expects a long run should prefer the fee.

Both models have a hidden line: the value of time. A one-off fee creates no pressure to finish, which is comfortable and can produce drift. A profit-share arrangement creates no pressure either, which is the same risk. On both, the trader has to supply the pace.

The practical way to supply it is a written calendar with a review date. If the account has not produced a defined return by that date, the attempt ends and the plan is revised. Without such a date, a period-based product can absorb a year of half-hearted trading before anyone notices.

Seasoning against a payout cycle

FTMO's first payout is available after a fixed seasoning period, with later withdrawals on a shorter schedule. Audacity's payout follows a fixed cycle after the minimum period. The difference that matters is the total time from the first payment to cleared funds.

On FTMO that total includes the evaluation phases, the verification stage, the seasoning period and the review. On the allocation programme it includes the period and the cycle. Both are longer than the marketing pages suggest, and both are driven by the calendar rather than by the trading.

The review examines the record on both. Statements show what happened; a journal shows why. On a fixed-floor product the statements are simple, which makes the journal the only place where the reasoning is visible.

Identity and payment verification sit on the critical path on both. Names, addresses and the original funding instrument have to match, and a since-replaced card means a manual check. Clear them during the attempt.

The last variable is the minimum withdrawal. A cycle that pays monthly but requires a balance above a threshold effectively pushes the first payout later than the schedule suggests, which matters for a trader using the profit as income rather than as capital.

Retry economics

The expected cost of a funded account is the fee divided by the pass probability. On FTMO, three stages multiply: if each has a 45% pass probability, the path probability is about 9%, and a $450 fee becomes roughly $5,000 per funded account. That number is why the verification stage should be modelled separately.

On an allocation programme there is no target to pass, so the probability is better described as the chance of finishing the period without a breach. That is usually higher than a three-stage path probability, because there is only one way to fail.

The lever that improves both figures is a smaller unit. A unit a third lower usually converts a normal losing run from a breach into a drawdown, and the fee is unchanged, so the expected cost falls by more than the profit per trade.

The second lever is the calendar. On a one-off fee, a longer attempt costs nothing and raises the chance of encountering a normal distribution of results. On a profit-share arrangement, a longer attempt also costs nothing in fees, which makes patience affordable on both.

Releases and weekend risk

Both markets react to the same macro calendar, and the reaction is violent: spreads widen before a release, liquidity thins, and the stop that looked safe a minute earlier is not the stop that fills.

Each rulebook treats the window differently. One bans fresh entries inside a stated period, another bans carrying a position through the event, a third bans capturing the spike itself. The third is the hardest to interpret, because a reviewer can apply it trade by trade or to the account as a whole.

Flattening into the release and returning an hour later is the version that removes the argument. A trader who insists on carrying risk should cut the position in half and place the stop where a gap would still leave the account intact.

Weekend gaps matter more on a period-based programme, because a three-month period contains twelve weekends and each one is an opportunity for a gap through a stop. Either reduce the unit for weekend exposure or flatten on Friday, and make the choice a rule.

Which trader fits which

FTMO fits a trader who wants a defined target, a structured multi-stage path and a familiar platform stack. The static floor suits a method with deep retracements, and the seasoning period suits a trader who does not need the first payout immediately.

Audacity fits a trader who wants a longer horizon without a target, who can trade a steady cadence across months, and who prefers a structure where survival rather than progress is the test. A profit-share arrangement makes it accessible to a trader with limited capital.

The tie-breaker is the finish line. A trader who needs a number to aim at should take the evaluation; a trader who overtrades when a number is close should take the period-based programme, because the structure removes the temptation.

If both fit, simulate each on the same hundred trades: apply the three-stage path to one and the period to the other. The one that survives with the smaller drawdown is the structure the method already suits.

What to confirm before paying

The first question is the floor type and whether it resets after a payout. The second is the daily stop, its basis and its reset time. The third is the consistency condition and the stage at which it applies.

The fourth is the fee structure and whether a retry is charged again. The fifth is the payout timing: seasoning period, cycle and minimum withdrawal.

Finish with the conduct section: event windows, which order types are permitted, whether automation is allowed, and whether a third party may trade the account. Short clauses, real consequences, and almost never reproduced in a comparison table.

Keep the answers in one dated folder. In a dispute that folder is proof, and recollection is not.

A thirty-day plan for either

Begin at half size and record rather than target. Log the buffer before each entry, note what the floor does after a winner, and write down the spread paid. By the end of the first week the account has a documented behaviour.

Weeks two and three are execution: normal unit, a fixed setup list, and a hard stop after two losing trades. Check the drawdown from the high each Monday. This is where the target is earned on FTMO and where the period return is built on the allocation.

Close out slowly. A third of the unit, the same instrument, and the payout paperwork checked line by line. More attempts die in the final fortnight than in the opening one.

The plan fits on a card: buffer, unit, session cap and the weekly stop. Four figures, revised at the open, and the rest is execution rather than arithmetic.

Common questions

Is Audacity Capital a challenge?

It is described as a capital allocation programme rather than a conventional challenge. There is usually no target to hit; the account has to trade for a minimum period without breaching a fixed allowance.

Do both use a static floor?

FTMO measures its floor from the starting balance, and Audacity's allowance is usually a fixed figure. Both behave like a static floor, so a constant risk unit stays valid.

Which one has a daily stop?

FTMO applies an equity-based daily stop. Audacity's is programme-specific, so confirm whether one applies and on what basis before planning the session.

How long until the first payout?

FTMO pays after a seasoning period following the funded stage; Audacity pays after the minimum trading period on a fixed cycle. Compare total elapsed time rather than the cycle itself.

Which platforms are available?

FTMO lists MT4, MT5, cTrader and DXtrade. Audacity lists MT4 and MT5. A trader with an MT4 or MT5 workflow can move between them without rebuilding.

Which suits a trader who overtrades?

The allocation programme, because there is no target to chase and the test is survival across a period. A number close at hand invites pressing; a horizon does not.

FTMO or Audacity — traded for you

One flat $220 for either evaluation, any account size. Retries covered, no profit split, funded login in your name. We work with any firm, and we tell you in writing what its third-party trading clause says before payment.

Start an evaluation Pass your evaluation

Related reading

• FTMO challenge passing
• Audacity Capital programme guide
• Passed challenges and certificates
• Client reviews of the service
• Daily drawdown explained
• The consistency rule guide
• Leverage and margin on an evaluation
• Weekend holding rules
• FTMO vs FTUK
• FTMO vs Take Profit Trader

FTMO and Audacity Capital are named for identification only. ElitePropX is an independent service and is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any proprietary trading firm. Rules, fees and payout terms change; verify every figure against the firm's own terms before purchasing an evaluation. Trading involves substantial risk of loss.