Settled comparison
Apex Trader Funding or Lucid Trading: Lucid Trading costs less on all three paths
The order does not flip: Lucid Trading costs less than Apex Trader Funding on all three paths compared here. This page exists for the path where Apex Trader Funding shows not a price but a FLOOR — and where the comparison settles anyway.
All-in cost across three paths
| Path | Apex Trader Funding | Lucid Trading | Cheaper |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passed first time | $1,190 | $146 | Lucid Trading |
| Three resets before passing | ≥ $550 | $416 | Lucid Trading |
| A year of funded account | $1,190 | $146 | Lucid Trading |
A minimum never ranks BELOW a firm price — it can rise, and nothing says how far. It does rank ABOVE one, because an amount already higher can only move further away. That is why the column settles here and stays silent elsewhere.
Apex Trader Funding’s minimum already exceeds Lucid Trading’s total
On “Three resets before passing”, Apex Trader Funding shows not a price but a minimum: ≥ $550. At least one line is missing, and a total with a missing line can only GO UP. At Lucid Trading, the same path costs $416, and that total is firm: every one of its lines carries a published amount.
The gap has two causes: Apex Trader Funding states a fee without publishing its amount, and our own record leaves another unpriced. We name both rather than pick the flattering one.
The gap is therefore AT LEAST $134, and that is all we publish of it: the page says which of the two costs less, not by how much. Lucid Trading stays the cheaper one whatever the missing amount turns out to be — which is the only reason this page can be published at all.
An empty cell would drop the row out of the ranking; a cell showing the only known total would rank it as a price, and lie. “At least” is the third answer: it is not a price, and it settles the question anyway.