Reviewed · how we check firm rules
Reviews and outcomes
Client outcomes, resets included
This is the page the passing service page points at when it says a track record should be checkable. It holds four things: the rule that decides what gets published, the dated outcome record, the failures that sit beside the passes, and a route to a client you can question yourself. It is self-collected, which is a weaker form of proof than a moderated review platform, and that limitation is stated here rather than hidden in a footnote.
What you can check here
- The publication rule — what a review must contain before it appears.
- Dated outcomes by firm, account size and trading days, with certificates named where one exists.
- The reset rate, and what a reset actually looks like in the session log.
- How to be put in contact with a client who passed and one whose attempt did not.
- A form to submit a review, a correction or a complaint.
A review is only published with four facts attached
Most review sections are written to be read quickly and believed immediately, which is why they carry first names, a job title and a sentence about how professional everyone was. None of that survives a second reading. A review on this page has to clear a different bar before it goes up: the firm, the account size, the outcome, and the date the result landed.
Those four facts are the minimum needed to tell one customer's experience from another's. "Passed FTMO, $100k, 14 November" is a claim someone could check. "Fantastic service, highly recommend" is not, and it is not published here regardless of how many stars it arrives with.
Four rules that apply to every entry
- Resets appear in the same table as passes. There is no separate failures page, because a failures page is a place reviews go to be forgotten. An attempt that ended in a breach is a row in the record with the same firm, size and date columns filled in.
- Nothing is edited for tone. Personal data is removed and spelling is left alone. If a client writes that the timeline slipped by nine days, the sentence stays as written.
- No entry is removed for being negative. If one ever is, the removal is announced on this page with its date and the reason, so the record can be read as a record rather than a selection.
- The collection is disclosed as self-run. We ask clients for reviews, we choose what to ask, and we decide what goes up. That is a conflict, it cannot be engineered away, and the honest response is to say so and to make the raw outcome data do most of the work.
Why not a star rating at the top? Because a rating summarises a collection whose size and selection nobody can see. Four facts per row and a published reset rate tell a buyer more than an average of five numbers, and they are the two things a review aggregator structurally cannot provide for a service this size.
The dated outcome record
Six documented evaluations, each of which produced a firm-issued certificate. Trading days are counted in sessions the firm recognised, not calendar days, because the two diverge sharply on futures accounts with holiday schedules.
| Firm | Size | Outcome | Trading days | Certificate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTMO | $100,000 | Passed, phase one and two | 16 | On request |
| Apex Trader Funding | $150,000 | Passed with a trailing threshold | 11 | On request |
| The5ers | $50,000 | Passed, slower than average by design | 19 | On request |
| FX2 Funding | $100,000 | Passed on a static floor | 13 | On request |
| Topstep | $100,000 | Reset, then passed on the second attempt | 15 | On request |
| Alpha Capital Group | $200,000 | Passed with instrument restrictions | 18 | Published |
The Topstep row is the one worth reading twice. The first attempt was reset on a news-window restriction that the firm enforced more strictly than its published schedule suggested, which is a rules interaction rather than a market event, and it is the clearest argument on this site for the retry being part of the fee instead of an add-on. The passed challenges page carries the full write-up of each row, including what went wrong in the sessions that went wrong.
Three certificates are published with client names blurred and everything else intact — the firm, the document, and the verification date. The remaining rows are available on request: ask for a firm and an approximate date and the matching certificate is sent with the identifying details removed. That offer is the reason the certificate column exists as a column rather than as a badge.
Where this record is weakest
A reviews page that only argues for itself is not evidence. Four limitations, stated plainly, are worth more than a paragraph of praise.
The reset rate is not zero
Roughly one managed evaluation in twenty ends in a reset, and that figure includes the retries in its denominator rather than dropping them out. The causes cluster around rule interactions rather than trading losses: a trailing floor that moved further than the plan assumed, a news window applied on a stricter reading than the firm's page implied, a rollover gap on a futures account. Any provider reporting a clean sheet is measuring a subset of its work.
Self-collected reviews skew
Clients who had a good outcome are more likely to answer a request for feedback than clients who are still annoyed about a nine-day delay. That bias is real and it is not correctable from inside the business. The mitigation here is structural: the outcome table is driven by certificates rather than by who felt like writing, so the rows exist whether or not anyone was in the mood to praise them.
We choose which certificates to publish
Three are public and the rest are on request. The selection is ours, and a reader has no way to know whether the three published are representative or the three best. That is a genuine hole in the evidence, and the only way to close it is to ask for a certificate for a firm and a period of your choosing rather than accepting the ones offered.
A pass is still not a payout
Nothing on this page is a claim about money earned. The service stops at handover, the funded account is traded by the client, and any payout is the client's result. A reviews page that blurs the two is selling an income claim it cannot support.
Talk to a client instead of reading a testimonial
There is a stronger check available than any review on this page, and it costs one message to use. Ask for a reference, name the firm you are considering, and the request is passed to two clients: one whose evaluation passed on that firm, and where one exists, one whose attempt was reset.
They decide whether to talk, and they answer the questions as asked. Nobody here reviews the exchange, supplies a script, or tells them what to say about the timeline. If neither client agrees, that is reported back rather than replaced with a substitute who will.
The reason this beats a five-star average is that a reference can be asked the question a review never answers: what happened on the day it went wrong, and how quickly were you told. A client who is still slightly irritated about a delay is a better source than one who is enthusiastic, so the request deliberately includes the reset.
Start that request from the contact page or on Telegram, naming the firm and the account size. It is available whether or not you intend to buy anything.
What is independently checkable, and what is not
Three things outside this website can be inspected without taking our word for anything.
- The certificates. Each is issued by the firm's own system, references an account the firm created, and carries a date. A document on our letterhead would prove nothing; these are not ours.
- The Telegram channel's message history. Posts carry timestamps that cannot be backdated, so the sequence of a pass, its announcement and the funded handover can be read in the order it happened.
- The firm's current rulebook. Every claim about a target, a daily limit or a trailing threshold is checkable against the firm's own page, and the methodology note explains what a checked date means and what gets published when a figure cannot be confirmed.
What is not checkable, and should not be pretended otherwise: no prop firm will confirm a third party's work to a stranger, so the certificate is the end of that chain rather than the beginning. There is no moderated review platform carrying this service yet, and until there is, this page is a first-party record with first-party limits. When an independent thread or listing exists, it will be linked from here rather than summarised.
Submit a review, a correction or a complaint
Clients, use the form below. Corrections from anyone are welcome too, including on the firm rules quoted across this site — a wrong target or an out-of-date drawdown figure is worth knowing about, and corrections are logged on the methodology page with the date they were made.
Reviews go up with the firm, the size, the outcome and the date, as the rule above requires. Submitting one does not commit you to having it published: tick the permission box only if you are happy for it to appear with your first name and the firm attached.
Questions about these reviews
Are these reviews independent?
No. They are collected, selected and published by ElitePropX, which makes them a first-party record rather than an independent one. The outcome table is the least dependent part of the page because each row is backed by a certificate the firm issued, but the choice of which certificates to publish is still ours. Treat the page as a starting point for verification, not as the verification itself.
Why is there no star rating or score?
Because an average hides both the sample size and how the sample was chosen, and those two facts decide whether a rating means anything. A page can show a 4.8 and be describing eleven hand-picked clients. Four dated facts per row, plus a published reset rate, are harder to game and easier to check.
Can I see the reviews that were rejected?
Reviews are not rejected for being negative. They are not published when they cannot be verified against an account — no firm, no size, no date — which in practice is most of what arrives from people who have never been a client. Anything withheld for that reason is recorded as withheld, and the count is available on request.
How do I know a client reference is real?
You do not, on trust alone. Ask the referenced client for the certificate for their own evaluation, or for the firm's confirmation email. A reference who agrees to talk is also agreeing to be checked, and one who is unwilling to produce any evidence is telling you something useful.
What happens if I dispute a review already published?
Both versions are published. A client who says a pass took twenty-six days and a record that says eighteen are not reconcilable by editing, so the disagreement is shown with the dates attached and whichever party produced documentation is identified. Removing the inconvenient half would make the page worthless.
Do you publish reviews of other passing services?
No, and the reason is competence rather than diplomacy. Reviews written about competitors by a competitor are not evidence, and third-party complaints are not ours to republish. The guide to vetting a passing service sets out the tests to apply to any provider, including this one.
How often is this page updated?
When a result lands, a certificate is added and the row appears within the same week; the date at the top of the page moves with it. It was last revised on 23 October 2026.
Want the reference before the review?
Name the firm and the account size and the request goes to a client who passed there and, where one exists, to a client whose attempt was reset.