Topstep vs Tradify: which rulebook fits your trading

What separates these two products

When two evaluations share a market, a trail and a daily stop, the differences are found in three places: the path from fee to funded account, the billing model, and the platform. Everything else is detail that can be adjusted in a plan.

The path is the largest difference. Topstep runs a Combine evaluation followed by a funded Trading Combine account, so the funded stage is a distinct product with its own conditions. Tradify sells a direct evaluation whose pass leads to a funded account under the same rulebook. That changes how many stages a trader has to clear and how much of the process is repeated.

The billing is similar on both — monthly subscription — so the calendar is a cost on either side. That shared structure removes the usual subscription-versus-one-off decision and leaves the trader comparing duration cost against duration cost.

The platform is the third difference. Topstep's own platform, TopstepX, sits alongside NinjaTrader, Tradovate and Rithmic; Tradify lists Tradovate, TradingView and NinjaTrader. A trader with an existing workflow should check that their stack appears on the list before comparing anything else.

The rulebooks side by side

The table is the shortest accurate summary. The rows that matter most are the evaluation model, the loss floor and the daily stop, because those three decide how a session and an attempt end.

Two details deserve attention. Topstep's daily stop is expressed in dollars per session, which converts directly into a loss count and therefore into a position size. Tradify's is a session stop without a stated expression here, so the first task is to convert it into dollars before any size is chosen. And Topstep's overnight restriction applies to some plans, which changes the holding period on those products.

The Combine against a direct evaluation

A Combine is a two-stage structure disguised as one product. The evaluation stage tests whether a method can produce a target inside a risk budget; the funded stage applies its own rules to the same account once the target is met. A direct evaluation compresses those into one document and one pass.

The practical difference is where a trader fails. On a Combine, a trader who passes the evaluation and then breaches a funded-stage rule has paid for a pass and received nothing withdrawable. On a direct evaluation, the breach and the pass happen under the same rules, so there is no stage at which the rules change underneath the trader.

The second difference is information. A two-stage structure tells the firm — and the trader — whether the method repeats under funded conditions. A single-stage structure tells them only that it produced a result once. For a trader who intends to run the account for years, the extra stage is evidence; for one who intends to withdraw once, it is cost.

The third difference is planning. A two-stage path should be planned as two campaigns with a pause between them, while a single-stage path should be planned as one campaign with a hard stop date. The mental load of carrying a target across stages is what breaks most traders, and a written calendar is the cheapest defence.

Two trailing floors

Both products trail the failure point, which means the buffer shrinks as the account earns. A $2,500 threshold on a $50,000 account starts at $47,500; after the account reaches $52,000 the failure point is $49,500, the room from the peak is still $2,500, and the room from the starting balance is $2,000.

The difference to confirm is what the peak includes. A trail measured from settled balance updates once a day; a trail measured from peak equity including open profit updates during a position and can be consumed by a retracement that ends flat. Topstep's row says peak equity, which is the stricter reading, and Tradify's row says trailing with a session stop, which leaves the same question open.

Either way, the planning rule is the same: recompute the unit from the buffer at the start of each session, and treat a new equity high as a reason to reduce size rather than increase it. A constant unit on a trailing floor means increasing relative risk, which is a slow breach.

The daily stop changes how the floor is consumed. With a session limit, a bad day ends at a figure and the buffer is preserved for the next session. Without one, a single session can consume a week of room. Both products have a daily stop, which is a genuine advantage over the products that do not.

A $50,000 Combine with a $2,000 red day

Assume a $2,500 threshold, a $1,000 per-session stop and a $250 unit. The floor starts at $47,500. A red day of $1,000 consumes 40% of the buffer and hits the session stop at four losses. The next morning the buffer is $1,500, so the same ten-loss tolerance implies a unit of $150 rather than $250.

That recomputation is the part most traders skip. Keeping the $250 unit after a $1,000 day means the account now has six losses of tolerance instead of ten, and a normal losing run becomes a breach. The daily stop protected the session; only the recalculation protects the attempt.

On a product without a session stop, the same day could have been $2,000 or $3,000, and the buffer would have been halved or worse. That is the argument for paying attention to the daily row in the table rather than treating it as a footnote to the floor.

The second calculation is the qualifying-day count. A payout requires a number of winning days, so a red day is not only a buffer loss; it is a day that does not count toward the payout. Two red days in a week can push the payout request into the next cycle even when the balance is positive.

The session stop as the real limit

On both products the session stop, not the trailing floor, is what ends most days. A $1,000 stop with a $250 unit allows four losses, and four losses is a normal afternoon for a method with a 45% hit rate. The limit therefore binds regularly, and the plan has to assume it will.

That has two consequences. First, the number of trades per session should be planned against the session stop, not against the number of valid setups. A trader who takes every setup will hit the limit on a bad afternoon and will have nothing left for a good one later in the week.

Second, the session stop should be smaller than the firm's. A personal cap of three losses leaves room for a review and keeps the week's total inside the buffer. The firm's limit is the account's protection; the personal limit is the trader's.

Topstep's dollar stop makes this arithmetic easy, because it converts directly into a loss count. A percentage stop requires a conversion first, and a stop stated without a figure requires a support request. In all three cases, the number belongs on a card before the open.

Contract sizing on each

The instruments are the same on both, so the arithmetic is identical. One Micro E-mini Nasdaq contract pays $2 per tick, so a 15-tick stop risks $30 per contract and a $250 unit buys eight contracts. One E-mini S&P contract pays $12.50 per tick, so an 8-tick stop risks $100 and the same unit buys two.

One Micro E-mini Dow contract pays $0.50 per tick, so a 20-tick stop risks $10 and the same unit buys twenty-five contracts. The count varies by a factor of twelve across instruments for the same dollar risk, which is why the calculation should be redone per instrument rather than remembered.

Check the position cap before the risk budget. Futures plans often limit contracts per position or total exposure, and the cap can bind before the unit does on a small stop. A size that fits the budget but exceeds the cap is a rule violation.

Add a slippage allowance. A stop becomes a market order on trigger, and in a fast tape the fill can be several ticks beyond the level. On a 15-tick stop, three ticks of slip is a 20% overrun, which on a trailing floor is felt immediately.

TopstepX against TradingView and Tradovate

TopstepX is the reason the platform row matters here. A proprietary platform ties the product to the firm: the order handling, the data and the interface are part of what the fee buys, and a trader who likes the platform has a reason to stay even when the fee is not the cheapest. It also means a trader who does not like it faces a migration to one of the other three platforms.

Tradify's list is the more conventional one: Tradovate for execution, TradingView for chart-first workflows, NinjaTrader for automation. A trader with an existing TradingView layout or NinjaTrader strategy can move without rebuilding, which is worth more than a marginally better interface.

Order handling differs in detail rather than in kind. Futures orders rest at the exchange on both, so fills are governed by the matching engine rather than by a broker's discretion. The practical difference is in the front end: hotkeys, DOM depth, and how quickly a position can be flattened when a session limit is near.

Data costs sit on top of both subscriptions. Depth-of-market is the expensive tier, and the feed a method needs determines the real monthly cost. Confirm what the plan includes before comparing subscriptions, because a cheap fee with an expensive feed is not cheap.

Winning days and qualifying days

Both products require qualifying days before a payout, and both count days rather than trades. That makes the calendar a separate constraint from the target: a trader can reach the profit target and still be unable to withdraw until enough days have been recorded.

The definition of a qualifying day matters. A day with a small positive close may or may not count, depending on the threshold. A day that is positive at midday and flat at the close may count or not, depending on whether the firm uses realised or peak profit. Ask which definition applies and keep a daily record that matches it.

The planning consequence is a daily target rather than a weekly one. A modest positive close per session satisfies the qualifying count and flattens the distribution, which also helps any consistency condition attached to the payout. A single large day satisfies the dollar requirement and leaves the count unmet.

Topstep's minimum session count is the second half of the same rule: even a trader who reaches the target quickly cannot compress the attempt below the required number of sessions. On a monthly subscription that is a cost, and it should be counted before the fee rather than after.

Monthly billing on both

At an illustrative $150 per month plus a $50 data fee, a three-month attempt costs $600 and a six-month attempt costs $1,200 on either product. The fee does not change with duration; the subscription does. That makes the calendar a cost centre on both sides.

This is the opposite of a one-off product, where patience is free. On a monthly product the optimal pace is the fastest one that respects the risk rules, and a cautious attempt that drifts is expensive. Set a calendar in advance and treat an extension as a signal to review rather than a neutral choice.

Retries multiply the arithmetic. Three attempts of three months each is nine months of subscription plus fees, which can be four times the headline price. Model the annual cost at a realistic number of attempts, and compare it with the payout the account is likely to produce over the same period.

The hidden lines are data, platform and time. They do not appear on the firm's page and they decide whether the exercise is a business or a hobby. A four-line annual budget takes ten minutes and answers the question.

One asymmetry is worth naming. Because both products bill monthly, a trader who pauses for a fortnight to review still pays for that fortnight. The calendar therefore rewards finishing a review quickly and returning to the screen, which is not always the healthiest incentive; the alternative is to cancel and re-enter, and that resets the fee rather than the account.

Payout mechanics

Topstep pays on request after qualifying winning days. Tradify pays after qualifying days under its own schedule. The difference that matters is the time from a profitable month to cleared funds and the conditions that can interrupt it.

Both review conduct before releasing profit. On a trailing product the statements show a floor that moved during the session, which can look unusual to a reviewer. A journal that records the buffer at the start and the end of each session answers the question before it is asked.

Verification is the quietest step and the one that delays payments most often. Identity, address and the original funding method all have to match, and a card replaced since purchase means a manual check. Clear them during the attempt rather than after the target.

Ask whether the split is calculated on gross or net profit, and whether the funded stage keeps the evaluation rulebook. Those two replies are worth more than the advertised percentage.

Retry economics

Estimate the pass probability from your own record and divide the annual cost by it. At an illustrative $600 per attempt and a 30% pass probability, the expected cost per funded account is $2,000 on either product. The difference between them is not the fee; it is the probability, which is driven by the rulebook and the trader's fit with it.

Nothing improves those figures as cheaply as trading smaller. A unit a third lower typically converts an ordinary run of losses from a breach into a manageable drawdown, and because the fee is fixed, the expected cost drops by more than the profit per trade does.

The second lever is the structure. On a two-stage path, the probability of reaching a funded account is the product of the stage probabilities, which is lower than either stage alone. A trader who passes evaluations but fails funded conditions should prefer the direct product; a trader who needs the funded stage to be tested should prefer the Combine.

The third lever is the calendar. A monthly product rewards a short attempt, so the plan should target a realistic duration. Extending an attempt that is not working adds cost without adding information.

Releases and overnight rules

Both trade US futures, so both face the same event calendar: central bank decisions, inflation prints, employment reports and, for some instruments, inventory data. The reaction is fast, the spread widens before the release, and the stop that looked safe at 09:25 is not the stop that fills at 09:30.

Topstep's overnight restriction applies to some plans, which makes holding a plan-specific question rather than a general one. Where it applies, a position must be flat before the overnight session, which removes the gap risk and also removes the ability to hold a runner into the next morning.

Restrictions around releases vary by plan on both sides. A window of two minutes is a different rule from a window of thirty, and "no new positions" differs from "no holding". The clause is short, rarely on the marketing page and enforced at review.

The conservative plan is to be flat into the release and re-enter after the first half hour. A trader who holds should halve the position and widen the stop to a level the buffer can survive if it gaps.

Which trader fits which

Topstep fits a trader who wants a structured path, a proprietary platform they are willing to learn, and a published dollar stop that converts easily into a loss count. The Combine structure suits a trader who is comfortable with a stage boundary and wants the funded period tested separately.

Tradify fits a trader who wants a direct evaluation under one rulebook, a conventional platform list, and a session stop without a stage change. It suits a trader with an existing TradingView or NinjaTrader workflow and a method that produces a small number of high-quality trades per session.

The tie-breaker is the platform. A trader who already works in TradingView or NinjaTrader has a lower switching cost on Tradify, while a trader who values an integrated experience may prefer TopstepX. That is a real criterion, not a superficial one, because the first weeks of an attempt are the worst time to learn a new order model.

If both fit, simulate each rulebook on the same hundred trades with the same dollar risk and compare the maximum drawdown. Whichever survives with the smaller figure is the structure the method already fits.

What to confirm before paying

The first is whether the trail includes open profit, and whether it updates continuously or at settlement. The second is the exact daily stop in dollars, its basis and its reset time.

The third is the stage structure: whether the funded account applies different rules from the evaluation, and what happens to a pass that breaches a funded-stage condition. The fourth is the qualifying-day definition and the minimum session count.

The fifth is billing and retries, including whether a promotion changes the renewal price. The sixth is the conduct clauses: news windows, overnight restrictions, order types, automation and third-party trading.

Keep the replies together in one dated file. Ten minutes of filing is what stands between a settled question and an argument held over a statement six weeks later.

A thirty-day plan for either

Week one is calibration: half the unit, a record of the buffer before every entry, and a note of how the floor behaves after a winner. On both products the goal is to see the trail move and to confirm the session stop in practice.

Weeks two and three are execution: normal unit, a fixed setup list, and a hard stop after two losing trades. Recompute the buffer each morning and halve the unit when it falls below one twelfth of the starting threshold. This is where the target is earned and where the trail begins to compress.

The final week is deliberately dull: a third of the unit, no new instrument, and the payout file checked line by line. Attempts are lost more often in that week than in the first, because the target looks close enough to gamble on.

One card carries the whole plan for both products: buffer in dollars, unit in contracts, and the session stop converted into a loss count. Update the first number every morning; the other two follow from it.

Common questions

Do both firms trail the loss floor?

Yes. Both use a trailing threshold, so the buffer shrinks as the account earns. Confirm whether the peak includes open profit, because that changes whether a position can breathe.

What is a Combine?

Topstep's evaluation stage, followed by a funded Trading Combine account with its own conditions. It is a two-stage structure rather than a single pass, so the funded rules should be read before the evaluation fee is paid.

Does Topstep publish a dollar daily stop?

Yes, the daily stop is expressed per session in dollars, which converts directly into a loss count: a $1,000 stop at a $250 unit is four losses.

Which platforms are available?

Topstep lists TopstepX, NinjaTrader, Tradovate and Rithmic. Tradify lists Tradovate, TradingView and NinjaTrader. Check that your existing workflow appears on the list before comparing fees.

Can I hold a position overnight?

It depends on the plan. Topstep applies an overnight restriction on some products, and Tradify's session rules should be confirmed. Where holding is not permitted, positions must be flat before the overnight session.

How many qualifying days are needed for a payout?

The count is plan-specific and usually tied to winning days above a threshold. Confirm the definition and whether peak or realised profit is used, then build a daily target around it.

Topstep or Tradify — 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

• Topstep challenge passing
• Tradify challenge passing
• Passed challenges and certificates
• Client reviews of the service
• Daily drawdown explained
• The consistency rule guide
• Weekend holding rules
• Leverage and margin on an evaluation

Topstep and Tradify 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.