Strategy styles · High win rate
Can a high win-rate strategy pass FundingPips?
Yes, on most rule sets. On FundingPips 2 Step Standard, our sample high win-rate trader passed 86% of attempts and went on to a first payout in 83%. That ranks FundingPips 5th of 46 firms with a challenge for this style; the middle challenge across all firms is 80%. The sample has a real edge built in, so read this as how FundingPips's rules treat the style, not as your own odds.
FundingPips accounts with a high win-rate strategy
| Account | Type | Pass chance | Pass and get paid | Best risk a trade | Days | Most common way it failed | Target | Daily loss | Max loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 Step Standard | 2-step | 86% | 83% | 1% | 94 | Hit the maximum loss | 8% / 5% | 5% | 10% static |
| Zero (instant) | Instant funding | No challenge | 77% | 0.75% | 26 | Hit the maximum loss | None | 3% | 5% trailing, locks at start |
"Pass and get paid" is the share of attempts that passed every phase and then reached a first payout without breaking a rule. Days are trading days. Rules checked 13 Nov 2026; full rules on the FundingPips page.
FundingPips's rules suit this style better than most. When the sample failed on FundingPips 2 Step Standard, it was most often because it hit the maximum loss.
The sample high win-rate trader
Our sample wins 75% of its trades, each winner is 0.4 times the risk, each loser is the full risk, and it takes about two trades a day: an average of 0.05R profit per trade, where R is the amount risked. Lots of small wins and the occasional loss two and a half times their size. The curve is smooth for long spells, which is why this shape passes challenges often when the edge is real. More on the sample and how it does across all firms.
FundingPips rules to watch with a high win-rate strategy
We have not recorded FundingPips's rules on open losses or short trades yet, and they are not in the pass figures above. Check FundingPips's own rules before you buy.
- The edge is easy to overestimate
- A 75% win rate feels safe, but at this size of winner the strategy needs to win more than 71% of the time just to break even. A backtest that is a few points too generous turns a winner into a loser.
- Open-loss rules
- A wide stop means trades sit well under water before they come back. Firms that count losses on open trades can stop the account before the stop is hit.
- Costs
- The winner is small, so the spread and commission are a large share of it. Test with a trade file that includes them.
Other styles at FundingPips
| Style | Best account | Pass chance | Pass and get paid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breakout | 2 Step Standard | 69% | 61% |
| Trend following | 2 Step Standard | 80% | 74% |
| Mean reversion | 2 Step Standard | 72% | 67% |
| Scalping | 2 Step Standard | 57% | 47% |
| Swing trading | 2 Step Standard | 89% | 87% |
| Opening range breakout | 2 Step Standard | 79% | 75% |
| Day trading | 2 Step Standard | 55% | 48% |
| High win rate (this one) | 2 Step Standard | 86% | 83% |
| Low win rate | 2 Step Standard | 64% | 56% |
| Position trading | 2 Step Standard | 87% | 83% |
| Grid and martingale | 2 Step Standard | 38% | 32% |
Firms whose rules suit this style better
- FTUK Flex Challenge: 89% passed
- Bullwaves Prime 1-Step 100K: 88% passed Caution
- Atlas Funded 2-Step: 87% passed
Ranked on the rules alone. It says nothing about how reliably a firm pays: see payout reports and each firm's page.
How this was worked out
Each style is a made-up sample trader, not a real track record. We set the figures so that every sample makes the same average profit: 0.1 times its risk per trading day, about 2R a month. They differ only in shape: how often they win, how big the winners are and how many trades they take. That way a difference between two styles comes from how the rules treat the shape, not from one sample simply being better. The exception is the grid and martingale sample, which has no edge at all: adding to losing trades changes the shape of the results but cannot create an edge.
Each sample was run 1,000 times against each account's published rules, at nine trade sizes from 0.13% to 1% of the account, and we show the size that did best. It is the same engine as the test centre. How the simulation works.
What this leaves out. Every sample but that one has a real edge and never breaks its own rules, which is why these figures are far higher than the share of real traders who pass. There are no spreads, commissions, swaps or slippage. Every winner and loser is the same size. And it only tests the rules in the table: profit targets, loss limits, trading days, time limits, consistency and payout terms, not rules on news, weekends or hold times. A strategy with no edge fails everywhere, whatever its style.
Questions
Can a high win-rate strategy pass FundingPips?
Yes, on most rule sets. On FundingPips 2 Step Standard, our sample high win-rate trader passed 86% of attempts and went on to a first payout in 83%. That ranks FundingPips 5th of 46 firms with a challenge for this style; the middle challenge across all firms is 80%. The sample has a real edge built in; a strategy without one fails at any firm.
Which FundingPips account is best for a high win-rate strategy?
FundingPips 2 Step Standard did best in our runs (86% passed). FundingPips Zero (instant): 77% reached a first payout.
How much should I risk per trade at FundingPips with a high win-rate strategy?
For our sample the best size on FundingPips 2 Step Standard was 1% of the account per trade, and a typical pass took 94 trading days. Your own best size depends on your win rate and losing runs, so test your own trades.
Test your own trades
These are samples. Your strategy has its own win rate, its own losing runs and its own costs. Upload a backtest or trade history and PropPassCheck replays it 2,000 times against each FundingPips account and every other firm, and shows your own chance of passing and of a first payout. It runs in your browser; nothing is uploaded.