Trailing drawdown is rare — three firms switch once funded

What the 144 plans actually say

The reading is dated 16 August 2026 and covers 13 firms, 144 account plans and 433 fee lines. On the drawdown type the split is 118 end-of-day, 23 intraday trailing, 3 static.

Those three figures add up to 144, which is the entire corpus: a drawdown type is recorded for every plan here. That is not true of the two other rules people compare on. 67 of the 144 plans carry no consistency rule at all — where one exists it is 20, 30, 40, 45, 50 % — and 79 of 144 carry no daily loss limit. The drawdown is the only constraint present on every plan, which is an argument for reading it first rather than last.

The 24 amounts a firm does not publish here fall on two items only, activation (14) and the data feed (10): the gaps in this reading are in prices, not in the drawdown rule.

Three types, three different reference points

The three types are not three severities of one rule. They differ in which event moves the threshold — the level at which the account stops, which is what a maximum drawdown is.

Static. The threshold is set at the start and never moves. Profit does not raise it, so the distance between the balance and the level that ends the account widens with every gain kept.
End of day. The threshold is recomputed once per session, from the balance at the close. Only settled results move it; whatever the account touched during the session leaves no trace on it.
Intraday trailing. The threshold follows the highest point the account reaches during the session, unrealised profit included. A peak counts whether or not the position was closed there, and once the threshold has risen it does not come back down.

That last clause is where the difference lives. Under end of day the reference is something the account owns: a closed balance. Under intraday trailing the reference is something that merely happened to the account for an instant. Any position that runs and then gives part of the move back opens a gap between the two, and under trailing that gap is taken out of the remaining room and stays taken. It is the same rule for everyone; it is dearer to a method that holds and cheaper to one that closes at the first target.

Why the minority is not the reassurance it looks like

23 plans out of 144 sounds like a rule you can simply avoid. Per firm, the picture changes. Of the 13 firms, 8 carry end-of-day drawdown only, 4 mix end-of-day and trailing inside their own range, and 1 mixes end-of-day and static.

So the 23 trailing plans do not sit in a handful of firms you can cross off a list. They sit inside four houses that also sell end-of-day plans. Choosing the firm does not choose the drawdown type; choosing the plan does. Same brand, same range, two different rules.

Static is rarer still — 3 plans — and the single firm carrying it also carries end-of-day. Nothing here supports treating static as a middle option you can shop for.

The rule you chose is not always the rule you will trade under

The most useful line in the reading is the last one. Three firms apply a different drawdown type on the funded account than in the evaluation: My Funded Futures, Funded Futures Network and Take Profit Trader.

Follow what that does to a comparison. You pick an evaluation on its drawdown type, because that is the visible rule and the one every table sorts on, and you trade the evaluation under it. The account you keep afterwards — the one you hold for as long as it lasts, the one payouts come from — runs under the other type. The rule you chose governs the part you were trying to get past; the rule you did not choose governs the part you were trying to reach.

This does not make those three firms worse than the rest. It makes the drawdown type a two-value field for them, and it breaks the shortcut of reading one figure per plan.

One of the three sit on another list here: Funded Futures Network is among the three firms billing the evaluation both monthly and as a one-off, alongside Phidias Propfirm and Alpha Futures — the only firms where comparing the two billing models stays inside one house. Useful for prices; it changes nothing about the type switching at funding.

What to check before paying

Two things, both of which live in a firm guide rather than in a table.

Which type applies at each stage. For most firms in this reading, one value per plan is enough. For three it is not, and a table storing one value per plan cannot represent them.
What starting again costs. This reading holds 76 priced reset lines, from 40 to 599 US dollars, and 68 of the 144 plans carry no reset line at all. That absence is a missing recorded price, not a recorded price of zero.

The end-of-day list gathers the plans on that type, the glossary defines each term, and the comparison puts the 13 firms side by side. The calculator and the subscription-versus-one-off article cover the money side.

What this data does not say

It records the drawdown type, not its size, and not the level at which a trailing threshold stops moving — the two figures that decide how much room a type actually leaves.

For the three firms that change type at funding, it records that the type changes, not in which direction. Nothing here says the funded rule is the stricter of the two, or the looser one.

Where a rule is absent, the reading records no line. It does not separate a firm that states there is no consistency rule from one that says nothing on the subject.

It says nothing about outcomes. How long an evaluation runs, how often a threshold is breached, what any of this does to a given method: none of it is measured here, and no count over 144 plans could produce it.

And it is one date: 16 August 2026, 13 firms, 144 plans. A rule can be rewritten the day after a reading, which is why every figure above is stamped rather than stated as permanent — the methodology says how.

Figures as of August 16, 2026, recomputed on every data update. Methodology