Prop Firms With No Consistency Rule 2026

FTMO’s 2-Step path, Blueberry Funded on most account types, and City Traders Imperium apply no percentage consistency rule to payouts. Each enforces other constraints, and Blueberry added a 15% check to one product in August 2026, so verify your specific account before paying.

A consistency rule caps how much of your total profit one trading day may contribute. A 30% rule means no single day may exceed 30% of the profit behind your payout. The full definition sits in the prop firm glossary.

Which Firms Have No Consistency Rule

Three firms on our list qualify, with different degrees of certainty. Below is each one, what it actually applies, and where the rule still bites.

FTMO, on the 2-Step path only

FTMO’s 2-Step Challenge and the funded account that follows it carry no Best Day rule and no separate consistency requirement. FTMO’s own trading objectives page confirms this by scope: the Best Day Rule is listed as applying to the FTMO Challenge: 1-Step and the FTMO Account (1-Step), and nowhere else.

Where it applies instead. On the 1-Step path, your Best Day may not represent more than 50% of your Positive Days’ Profit, calculated from closed trades with each day beginning at 00:00 CE(S)T.

The detail almost everyone gets wrong. FTMO states plainly that exceeding the Best Day limit is not treated as a rule breach. You are not disqualified. You keep trading until the ratio comes back into range. That makes FTMO’s version among the softest implementations in the category even where it does apply, which is covered further down.

So the honest framing: FTMO is a no-consistency-rule firm if you buy the 2-Step, and a soft-consistency firm if you buy the 1-Step. Same brand, opposite answer.

Blueberry Funded, on most account types

Blueberry Funded publishes a per-account breakdown in its help centre, which is more transparency than almost anyone else in this category offers. As of the last update, the position is:

No consistency rule: 2-Step, 3-Step, Instant Elite, Flex 1-Step purchased from 17 August 2026, and legacy 1-Step and Instant Lite accounts purchased before that date.

Consistency rule applies: Instant Lite purchased from 17 August 2026 carries a 15% check, meaning your best single trading day must sit within 15% of the total profit behind a payout. Synthetic accounts carry 30% on funded accounts.

Two things are worth pulling out.

Accounts keep the terms they were sold under. Blueberry states that accounts purchased before 17 August 2026 continue on their existing terms. Grandfathering is not universal in this industry, and its absence elsewhere is a reason to read change announcements.

A separate rule is easy to mistake for consistency. On Flex 1-Step, if a single trade idea produced more than 60% of your profit target during the evaluation, the funded account carries a 4 minimum trading days condition before the first payout. Blueberry explicitly categorises that as not a consistency rule. It is checked once at pass and sets a days requirement rather than testing profit distribution. Minimum trading days are compared separately in our minimum trading days guide.

City Traders Imperium, with a qualification

City Traders Imperium does not publish a percentage consistency rule that blocks payouts. What it runs instead is a consistency score inside its Trader Quest framework, which feeds eligibility for scaling and higher profit shares.

The distinction matters. A percentage rule at payout can hold your money. A score affecting scaling affects how large your account can grow and what split you earn, but does not gate the payout itself on profit distribution.

We have not found a published percentage threshold for CTI, so this entry is qualified rather than confirmed. If a payout-blocking threshold exists and is simply unpublished, that is a different situation, and the honest position is that we do not know.

Two firms we are deliberately not naming. A widely shared third-party page lists two further firms on our profile list as having zero consistency rules on every program. Our own firm data contradicts that for one of them. Neither firm publishes an unambiguous statement we can point to. Rather than repeat an unverified claim about a rule that can hold someone’s payout, both are left off until we can source them directly.

How the Rule Is Calculated

The standard calculation divides your single best trading day by your total profit, then compares the result to the firm’s threshold. FundedNext publishes the formula directly: Highest Profit Contribution = (Highest Profit Day / Total Profit) × 100%.

A worked example. A trader on a $100,000 account with a 30% threshold accumulates $6,000 in profit across four days:

Best day is Tuesday at $2,600. Against $6,000 total, that is 43.3%. Above a 30% threshold, so the payout does not qualify yet.

To bring Tuesday to 30% or below, total profit needs to reach roughly $8,667. The trader needs about another $2,667 of profit from days that are individually smaller than Tuesday. That is the mechanic: you rarely fail a consistency rule outright, you get told to keep trading.

Three variations that change the answer.

What sits in the denominator. Most firms divide by total profit. Some divide by the profit target instead. FundedNext uses profit target on some of its challenge products, where a day exceeding 40% of the target pushes the target upward rather than blocking anything.

Whether losing days count. FTMO’s Best Day Rule divides by Positive Days’ Profit, the sum of closed results from profitable days only. Losing days are excluded from the denominator, which makes the ratio harder to satisfy than a version dividing by net profit.

Daily versus best-day framing. FundingPips applies a 30% daily consistency limit on its higher-split tracks, and the rule resets after each payout. E8 Markets uses a 40% best-day rule with an additional requirement that net profit exceed 50% of the daily drawdown amount. Alpha Capital Group runs 40% for on-demand payouts with a bi-weekly fallback. FXIFY applies 30% at payout.

One arithmetic consequence worth knowing. A threshold sets a minimum number of profitable days by simple division. Under 40%, no single day can carry more than 40% of profit, so at least three profitable days are required. Under 30%, at least four. Under FTMO’s 50%, at least two. A firm can advertise no minimum trading days and still make a two-day pass impossible at payout.

Why Firms Use Consistency Rules

Firms use them to filter out one-session outliers, because a trader who made everything on a single position has not demonstrated a repeatable edge. That is the stated reason, and it is a real one.

The commercial reason sits alongside it. These programs price evaluations on the assumption that most buyers do not reach a payout. A trader who passes on one oversized position is producing a payout obligation from what may be variance. A consistency rule converts that into a requirement to keep trading, which produces more data and, from the firm’s side, more opportunity for the account to breach a limit before the payout is due.

Both readings are true at once. The rule genuinely does select for repeatability. It also delays payouts, and the delay favours the firm.

There is a third, more mundane driver: risk mirroring. Firms that hedge or copy a portion of trader flow into live markets need position sizing that is predictable. An account producing one enormous day is harder to model than one producing many small ones.

Why the rule migrated to the payout stage. Early versions of consistency rules sat in the evaluation, where failing one ended the attempt. Most firms have since moved them to payout review, where the consequence is a delay rather than a termination. That shift is why a firm can honestly say it has no consistency rule on the challenge while still applying one before it releases money, and it is the single most common reason traders feel misled by this rule. Read the funded-stage terms, not the challenge marketing.

What Happens When You Breach It

You are usually not disqualified. At most firms a consistency breach pauses or delays the payout rather than closing the account or voiding profit, which makes it fundamentally different from a drawdown breach.

Blueberry Funded states this explicitly for its 15% Instant Lite check: the rule affects when a payout is released, not whether you keep it. A request that does not meet the check is paused rather than declined, nothing is removed from the account, and no profit is forfeited. The payout releases once further trading brings the balance into range.

FTMO’s position is the same in structure. Exceeding the Best Day limit is not treated as a rule breach, and the trader continues until the ratio resolves.

FundedNext’s documentation follows the same logic on the products where the rule applies: if the highest day exceeds the threshold, trading continues until results become consistent.

What that means practically:

• The money is not gone. Consistency failures are payout timing events, not account terminations.
• The clock is the cost. You wait a cycle, or several, and during that wait you are still exposed to the drawdown rules that can end the account.
• That exposure is the real risk. A trader forced to keep trading purely to satisfy a ratio is trading without a setup, which is exactly the situation the drawdown limits are designed to catch.
• Some firms downgrade rather than pause. Alpha Capital Group drops a trader who misses the 40% test from on-demand payouts to the bi-weekly cycle, so the consequence is a slower schedule rather than a hold.

Read the specific wording, because “denied”, “paused” and “recalculated” describe three different outcomes and firms use them loosely. For anything about passing the evaluation itself, see how to pass a prop firm challenge.

Where the Rule Is Softest

FTMO’s 1-Step Best Day Rule is the softest implementation among firms that have one, because the threshold is the highest at 50% and exceeding it is explicitly not a breach.

Ranked by how much room the threshold leaves:

• 50%, FTMO 1-Step. Two profitable days can satisfy it. Not a breach when exceeded.
• 40%, E8 Markets, Alpha Capital Group, FundedNext on applicable products. Three profitable days minimum. Alpha’s consequence is a slower payout cycle rather than a hold.
• 30%, FundingPips higher-split tracks, FXIFY, Blueberry Synthetic funded accounts. Four profitable days minimum. FundingPips resets the rule after each payout, which limits how far the requirement compounds.
• 15%, Blueberry Instant Lite from 17 August 2026. The tightest threshold we have found, requiring roughly seven profitable days. Offset by an explicit pause-not-deny policy.

Two softening features matter as much as the number. Whether the rule resets after a payout, as it does at FundingPips, decides whether one large early day follows you forever. And whether the denominator includes losing days, because excluding them, as FTMO does, tightens a stated threshold in practice.

One more: at FundingPips the rule attaches to the higher-split tracks rather than to all accounts. Taking a lower split can mean taking no consistency requirement. That trade-off is rarely presented clearly at checkout.

Four things to check before paying, all findable in the firm’s own rules pages in a few minutes: whether the rule exists on the specific product you are buying rather than the firm generally; whether it applies at the challenge stage, the payout stage, or both; what sits in the denominator, since total profit and profit target give different answers; and whether the consequence is a pause, a recalculated target, or a denial. If the firm does not publish an answer to all four, that absence is itself worth weighing before you spend anything.

PropFirmProof publishes comparison and education content only and does not provide financial advice. Some links on this page are affiliate links, and commission does not influence any assessment. Trading carries substantial risk.

Frequently Asked Questions