There is no honest universal “cheapest prop firm after three months.” The answer changes with the market you trade, the exact program, how many evaluation billing cycles you need, whether a fee is refunded, funded-account charges, platform and data costs, and the share of an approved payout the firm keeps.
For a trader who passes quickly and wants one funded account, the lowest-cost path is usually the exact program with the smallest verified upfront cost and no recurring funded-account charge. For a trader who needs several attempts, a monthly evaluation can become the dominant cost. For a profitable trader, payout split and withdrawal eligibility can outweigh the evaluation fee.
Current program prices and rule fields are rendered from the server-side catalog above. They are scoped to exact programs, account sizes, regions, and first evaluation stages, with source links and verification dates. Futures and CFD programs are shown in separate tables because they are not interchangeable products.
The Real Cost Framework: Beyond Evaluation Price
Start with cash that actually leaves the trader, not the largest account number in the advertisement. For one three-month scenario, calculate:
Three-month cash cost = evaluation billing + resets + activation + funded-account fees + platform/data + withdrawal fees.
If you also want net economics after an approved payout, add the firm's share of that payout and subtract only a fee refund that the exact program actually returned. Do not count an advertised refund before its eligibility conditions have been met.
The seven inputs
- Exact program and stage. A firm can sell several programs with different prices and transitions. Compare program IDs, not logos.
- Evaluation billing model. Record whether the fee is one-time or recurring and what ends the billing cycle.
- Your attempt count. Do not insert an “industry average.” Use your own scenario: one pass, one reset, or a defined number of monthly cycles.
- Post-pass charges. Activation, funded-account, exchange-data, platform, and withdrawal charges belong in the same worksheet.
- Refund status. A conditional refund is a receivable, not cash in hand. Credit it only after the required payout or milestone.
- Payout share and restrictions. Apply the split to the amount that is actually eligible for withdrawal, not to an assumed account balance.
- Failure boundary. A cheaper path that conflicts with your market, drawdown behavior, platform, or schedule is not cheaper if it sends you back to checkout.
The futures prop-firm hidden-cost guide goes deeper on fees that sit outside the headline evaluation price.
Firm-by-Firm Cost Breakdown: Use Comparable Programs
The server-rendered catalog separates two decision sets. The futures set holds global/default region, a $100K simulated account, and the first evaluation stage constant for Topstep Trading Combine, Apex EOD Evaluation, and MyFundedFutures Rapid. The CFD set holds the same region, size, and first-stage scope for FTMO 2-Step and The5ers High Stakes New.
That scope does not make futures and CFD programs equivalent. Choose the market first. Then compare the exact programs available for that market. If you are still choosing a category, use the broader prop-firm comparison framework before calculating cost.
What the live table answers
- the current catalog-backed first-stage price or Not verified;
- profit target, daily-loss treatment, and maximum-loss rule;
- minimum-day condition, payout path, platforms, restrictions, and verification date;
- the exact official source used for that program scope.
What it does not answer automatically is how many attempts you will need, whether you will choose a paid platform, or whether you will reach an eligible payout. Those remain scenario inputs.
Side-by-Side: Build a Three-Month Cost Sheet
Create one row per exact program and keep all assumptions visible. A compact worksheet needs these columns:
| Input | What to enter | Evidence rule |
|---|---|---|
| Program | Exact firm, program, stage, region, and account size | Must match the catalog component |
| Evaluation billing | Current fee × your defined billing cycles | Server truth; no copied sale price |
| Resets | Current reset charge × planned resets | Use only if separately verified |
| Post-pass fixed cost | Activation plus three months of recurring charges | Exact funded path, not firm-wide shorthand |
| Platform and data | Your selected route, entitlements, and classification | Do not assume every platform is free |
| Withdrawal cost | Verified processing charge for your method | Keep bank/FX costs separate |
| Firm share | Eligible approved payout × applicable firm percentage | Apply exact payout stage and limits |
| Refund received | Amount actually returned within the scenario | Zero until eligibility is satisfied |
Keep two totals: cash cost before payout and economic cost after an approved payout. Mixing them makes a refundable challenge fee look free on day one or makes a profit split look like an upfront bill.
When a Different Program Becomes Cheaper
The winner can change for four legitimate reasons:
- Attempt count: recurring evaluation billing matters more as the passing date moves.
- Time funded: recurring funded-account or data costs accumulate with each active month.
- Withdrawable profit: payout split, buffer, consistency, and withdrawal limits matter only under the exact funded-stage rules.
- Tooling: paying for a platform you already own, or choosing an included route you can genuinely use, changes the total.
Before treating a lower number as a recommendation, compare the drawdown and consistency mechanics in the prop-firm rules cheat sheet. A cost table cannot compensate for a program that does not fit the trader's execution pattern.
Three Mistakes When Picking the “Cheapest” Firm
Mistake 1: Comparing firms instead of exact programs
A firm name is not a price object. Program, size, region, platform path, and stage determine the applicable facts.
Mistake 2: Copying a sale price into a permanent article
Promotions expire and checkout scope changes. Live prices belong in the server catalog with a verification date. A dated scenario may preserve an old price only when it is explicitly narrative or historical evidence.
Mistake 3: Treating account size as spendable capital
The advertised simulated balance is not your cash and does not measure usable loss room. Compare the actual drawdown contract and the dollars you pay.
Track the Scenario Against Real Trading Evidence
Trader's Second Brain is our product. Its useful role here is recordkeeping, not choosing a firm for you. TSB recognizes 328 import profiles, has processed 600K+ imported trades, includes prop-rule tracking, and offers a lifetime-access route whose current scope and price render from server truth. Those figures describe product coverage and operating scale—not the sample behind this comparison or a promise that journaling will make an evaluation cheaper.
Attach each account's exact program ID, fees, resets, platform costs, and withdrawals to the same ledger as its trades. Reconcile imported trades against the source statement before using the result. Then the three-month worksheet can use observed costs instead of remembered checkout prices.
How We Calculate Total Cost
Current program facts come from the canonical catalog and the primary-source URLs displayed in the SSR component. The editorial method holds region, account size, and first evaluation stage constant inside each market group, refuses to fill catalog gaps, and keeps the conclusion separate from automatically refreshed fields.
For your own comparison, copy the live inputs, save the verification date, and freeze the scenario. If a catalog update conflicts with the conclusion, the component raises an editorial warning rather than silently rewriting the verdict. The prop-firm rules simulator guide explains how to test exact rule paths before buying.
Final Verdict: Cheapest After Three Months
The cheapest program is the one with the lowest verified three-month cash cost among programs that fit your market and operating constraints. In a clean-pass case, prioritize exact fixed charges and recurring funded costs. In a retry case, evaluation cadence can dominate. After an approved payout, apply the exact split and only then credit a real refund.
Do not preserve a universal winner in evergreen prose. Use the server table for current facts, the worksheet for your attempt and tooling assumptions, and a separate no-payout scenario for downside planning. For a broader quality-first shortlist after cost, see the best futures prop firms guide.
