What changed

Correction: FTMO's "$345" was a euro figure from a third party, and the fee we read is stated non-refundable

Our FTMO pricing summary said "$50K Challenge: one-time $345, no subscription or activation. The fee is refunded with your first payout once you become an FTMO Trader." There are three problems with that sentence. The $345 is EUR 345, not dollars; it is a third-party figure for the 2-Step from April 2026; and our own record carries an explicit warning that the tracked US dollar figure is not comparable to FTMO's euro prices. Printing a euro amount behind a $ sign is a sourcing error and a currency error at once. The refund claim is contradicted by the only FTMO page we have read first-hand. On 2026-09-08 their 1-Step promo page served the ladder in euros and stated the fees are one-time and non-refundable: $10K at EUR 79, $25K at EUR 199, $50K at EUR 319, $100K at EUR 499 and $200K at EUR 999. The summary now gives EUR 319 for the $50K 1-Step with that date, says plainly that the page states the fee is non-refundable, and notes that we hold no primary 2-Step price. We are not claiming FTMO refunds nothing anywhere — we are reporting what the one page we could read actually says. The absence of subscription and activation fees is downgraded from a claim to what the record holds: not documented on the pages reviewed. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: we published a ~$90 price for ETF, and a "no activation" our own record disputes

Our Elite Trader Funding pricing summary said "50K: one-time from ~$90 (OG plan), no activation. $47 reset (Fast Track has none)." The ~$90, and the "OG plan" it was attached to, appear nowhere in our record. The lowest 50K figure we hold is $165 and it is third-party; ETF's own April-2026 blog says 1-Step "starting at $197". The record's price field is explicitly null and flagged CONFLICT across three disagreeing sources, with a note not to resolve it. Worse, the summary settled two disagreements the record deliberately keeps open. Funded-stage fees are logged as a CONFLICT: ETF's own homepage strip carries one-time charges of $157 for 1-Step, $177 for Static and End of Day and $307 for Diamond Hands, with Fast Track at $87 per month after the first funded month, set against a different third-party list. Saying "no activation" picked a side, and the wrong one. The $47 reset is likewise one half of a recorded disagreement against a third-party figure of $87. The summary now publishes no price, names the sources that disagree, and leaves both fee questions open. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: our E8 summary quoted the code depth E8's own configurator contradicts

Our E8 Markets pricing summary said "$50K single-phase: one-time $288 (~$260 with code E8), no monthly or activation fee." The $288 is right and primary. The ~$260 implies a 10% discount, and that is one side of a disagreement between two E8 pages which our record deliberately leaves open: their discount-code page lists code E8 at 10% off E8 One (Forex) for all purchases, while the E8 One configurator applies 25% and describes it as a first-order code. At the $50K that is $259 against $216. The record already notes that the 10% depth is superseded by what the configurator actually serves, and the conflict card renders beside this summary — which is why this is a smaller error than the others published today, since a reader does see both positions. But the prose still quietly picked one, and the one it picked costs $43 more at this size. The summary now states $288 at the configurator default of 6% maximum drawdown and 80% split, notes that the price moves with those settings, and gives both discount outcomes without choosing between them. "No Activation Fee" is E8's own wording and is kept; the monthly-fee absence is stated as undocumented. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: we published a $149 LucidFlex price Lucid does not state anywhere

Our Lucid Trading pricing summary said "LucidFlex 50K: one-time, ~$149 list (often ~$89 with a code), no activation." On 2026-09-10 we checked Lucid's own pages first-hand: they load, and no Lucid page serves any LucidFlex dollar figure at all. Our own corpus meanwhile carries three different numbers for that one product — $149 in this summary, $140 in the pricing record, $136 in the offers row — none of them primary, and the oldest dated 2026-07-24. Publishing any of the three as list was a choice among our own inconsistencies dressed up as a fact about Lucid. The "~$89 with a code" compounds it: that is the unverified list reduced by an affiliate discount depth, while the only code Lucid publishes itself is "FOR THE BEST DEAL USE CODE : VAULT" with no percentage or amount stated anywhere. A code that exists with no stated value is not the same claim as a code worth 40%. The "no activation fee" is a real Lucid quote, but it is about upgrading a LucidPro evaluation, not about LucidFlex. The summary now states that Lucid publishes no LucidFlex price, publishes none itself, gives the VAULT code without inventing a value for it, and adds the one Lucid page that does serve dollar figures: LucidMaxx eval pricing, where the $50,000 runs $180, $215, $250 or $290 according to how many live accounts you have blown without clearing drawdown. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: we published $319 for a Funded Trading Plus size our record never held

Our Funded Trading Plus pricing summary said "$50K Classic (2-step): one-time $319, no recurring or activation fee. One-step Express version at $349." The $319 appears nowhere in our record. For Classic we hold only the two ends of the ladder, $89 at $10K and $549 at $100K, with no $50K point at all, so there was nothing for $319 to have been drawn from. The one price we have read first-hand on their own site is the $100K 1-Step Express at $549; the $349 for the $50K Express is second-hand. The fee absences were stated flatly while both flags in the record read UNVERIFIED, the activation flag adding that the absence was not confirmed. The summary now leads with the size we actually verified, marks the $50K Express figure as second-hand, says we publish no Classic $50K price, and carries the size-tiered codes live on their own pages — SIZE25 for $25K to $50K and SIZE20 for $100K to $200K, which matter more to a buyer's real cost than the list figure we had wrong. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: Instant Funding's $289 is a couponed price we published as list

Our Instant Funding pricing summary said "$50K One-Phase: one-time $289, no activation." The $289 is a real figure, but it is the price after an 18% affiliate code, and our own data records it as being below list. We published a couponed price as though it were the list price, on a page whose whole purpose is to let people compare list prices. The record is explicit that undiscounted prices are not capturable read-only, because the fees load by script, so we hold no list price for any size. Their own promo page runs deeper codes than the one the $289 came from: 42% off with BFNEW for new customers and 37% off with BF1. A reader taking $289 as the baseline would have compared Instant Funding against rivals on a number that is neither the most they might pay nor the least. The activation line in the record reads that none is documented on the rules and accounts pages and that the absence was not positively confirmed, which is the not-stated case rather than the no-such-fee case. The summary now says $289 is a couponed figure and names the code, states that we hold no list price and why, carries the firm's own deeper codes, and downgrades the activation claim to undocumented. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: Earn2Trade says "No Upfront Activation Fee" and we dropped the word carrying the meaning

Our Earn2Trade pricing summary said "Gauntlet Mini 50K (GAU50): ~$170/month, no activation." The $170 is right and it is primary, from their own Gauntlet Mini page. The "no activation" is where it goes wrong. Earn2Trade's own wording is "No Upfront Activation Fee", and upfront is the word carrying the meaning: our record also holds a second-hand $139 LiveSim activation deducted from the first withdrawal, and notes explicitly that the two statements are consistent rather than contradictory. A fee taken out of your first withdrawal is not an absent fee. Dropping one adjective turned a precise claim into a wrong one, on the field a trader is trying to budget. The price also carries an open disagreement between two Earn2Trade pages that the summary did not mention: their homepage advertises Gauntlet Mini "From $68" while the Gauntlet Mini page says "starting at $170/mo". Both are recorded with their URLs and neither is resolved, and unlike some of our firms this row has no conflict card rendering beside it, so the summary was the only place a reader would have learned of it. The summary now gives the $170 with its page, states the homepage figure beside it, and reproduces the activation wording with upfront intact. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: Apex's "$197/month list" and "~$85 activation" are not values we hold

Our Apex Trader Funding pricing summary said "50K: ~$197/month list, but with near-constant promos (up to ~90% off, ~$20/month). One-time ~$85 activation when funded." Our record's list price for the 50K is null, and the field is flagged CONFLICT because Apex's checkout sits behind script and login while the second-hand figures disagree sharply: one source gives the 50K End of Day at $490 and Intraday at $249, another gives $197 and $131 for the same two plans. Publishing $197 as the list price picked one side of that disagreement and presented a second-hand figure as established. The ~$20/month that followed inherited the same unsupported base. The ~$85 activation is not in the record at any point, from any source. What the record holds is that a one-time PA activation fee exists, is due within seven calendar days of passing, and is excluded from promo codes — all of that from Apex's own pages — while the amounts $99 for End of Day and $79 for Intraday are second-hand only. The summary now publishes no list price and no activation amount, keeps the parts that are primary, and keeps Apex's own homepage promo wording in English. The reset statement was already correct and is retained with its quote. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: Alpha Capital's $297 is Alpha One, not the Alpha Pro 10% we attached it to

Our Alpha Capital Group pricing summary said "$50K Alpha Pro (10%, 2-step): one-time $297 (~$252 with a code), no activation." The $297 is a real, primary figure — but it belongs to a different product. Our record has it as the Alpha One $50K spot price, read from their own product page on 2026-07-21. Alpha Pro 10% is a separate line, and we hold its ladder only as a range across every size, with no $50K point isolated. Attaching a verified price to the wrong product line is the kind of error that survives review precisely because the number itself checks out. The "~$252 with a code" comes from affiliate codes of about 15% that our record describes as observed in the affiliate channel, not offered by Alpha Capital; the same note records no sitewide promo on the product page that day. And "no activation" states an absence the record explicitly does not hold: the flag reads that none was found stated and that no activation-fee claim was captured either way. That is the not-stated case, and publishing it as a confirmed zero is exactly the merge our own write contract forbids. The summary now names Alpha One as the product the $297 belongs to, attributes the discount to affiliates rather than to the firm, and says the activation question is unestablished. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

The5ers inactivity: 30 days in evaluation, 60 once funded — the stage split we had recorded as not stated

Read first-hand on 2026-09-25 from The5ers' own High Stakes general-rules page: "Trading accounts without activity will automatically expire if left inactive. The inactivity limit is 30 consecutive days for evaluation accounts and 60 consecutive days for funded accounts." Our record held a single 30-day window with the stage scope marked not stated, and a note saying the scope was absent from the captured text. It is not absent any more, and the funded figure is double the one we were publishing. That distinction is the whole point of the field: a funded trader who reads 30 days and stops trading for 45 would have been told their account was gone when it was not, and a trader in evaluation who reads 60 because a firm-level number looked safe would lose the account. The trigger is unchanged and is what matters most — the clock runs on trading activity, not on logging in, so opening the platform does not reset it. What we verified today and did not change: the consistency mechanic (minimum 3 profitable days per step, a profitable day being closed net of at least +0.5% of the initial balance), the news window (order execution prohibited from 2 minutes before to 2 minutes after a high-impact release, with profits from it deducted), and the 10% maximum total loss. The daily loss limit remains an open disagreement between The5ers' own pages at 3% and 5%; today's read reconfirms the 5% side only, so the conflict stands and we still do not pick. The section summary no longer states "5% daily" as settled, and now leads with the current 10%/5% step targets rather than the legacy 8%/5% pair.

Correction: we published $220 and $170 for Maven sizes that appear nowhere in our record

Our Maven Trading pricing summary said "$50K Standard 2-Step: one-time $220 (~$198 with a coupon), refundable on your 3rd withdrawal. One-step version at $170." Neither $220 nor $170 appears anywhere in our record, at any size, from any source. What we actually hold, read first-hand on 2026-09-10, is the 2-Step $100K at $440 list falling to $396 with ETERNAL, Maven's standing site-wide code. We also hold a second-hand price table that puts the 2-Step $100K at $199, less than half of what we read ourselves. At the one size where our two records overlap, the table loses; so we do not lift a $50K figure out of a table our own reading undercuts. The summary now gives the $100K with its date and its code, says it is the nearest size we verified, and states that we publish no $50K price. The refund-on-third-withdrawal claim is not in the pricing record at all and is not republished here — it may well be true, but a summary is not the place to carry something we have not sourced. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: we published a ~$309 price for The5ers' $50K that we never verified

Our The5ers pricing summary opened with "$50K High Stakes (2-step): one-time ~$309". That figure appears nowhere in our own verified data. What we did read first-hand on The5ers' pages on 2026-09-08 was $179 for the $100K 2-Step Classic (8%/5%) and $149 for the 10%/5% tier. Our record further states explicitly that the $2.5K–$50K sizes were defeated by the dynamic pricing widget and were not to be quoted without a screenshot. The summary quoted a $50K price anyway, and did so in all five languages. The summary now gives the figures we actually verified, at the size we verified them, and says plainly that we publish no $50K price. It also changes "no activation fee" to "no activation fee documented": the absence is not confirmed, only undocumented. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move — there was no fresh read to justify one.

Correction: we published $299 for FXIFY's $50K and a ~10% code depth our data does not support

Our FXIFY pricing summary said "$50K two-phase: one-time $299 (~$269 with a code), no activation". None of those three claims survives contact with our own data. The record says the per-size price grids did not render on the pages fetched and that the only first-hand confirmed point is One Phase $5K at $250. The implied ~10% code depth ($299 to $269) is not there either: what we hold is ~20% codes advertised by affiliates, which is third-party material. And the absence of an activation fee is marked unconfirmed in the record itself, not verified. The summary now says we publish no $50K figure, gives the one price we confirmed with its size, keeps the firm's promotional phrases in English, and separates what FXIFY says from what its affiliates say. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: we published a ~$299 price for FundingPips' $50K that we never captured

Our FundingPips pricing summary said "$50K 2-Step Standard: one-time ~$299". Our own data says otherwise: the only primary price we hold is $529 for the $100K 2-Step Standard, and the record explicitly notes that the $50K price was not captured because FundingPips' pricing pages returned 403. We were publishing a figure for a size we never read. The summary now gives the $100K at $529, says it is the nearest size we could verify and why, and states that we publish no $50K figure. It also adds the registration-fee refund at the 4th reward, which is documented, with its scope: it applies to 1-Step and 2-Step Standard Master, not to Pro, Flex or Zero. No structured value changed and the verification date did not move.

Correction: our Tradeify news summary said there is no restriction at all, while Tradeify's own pages disagree

Tradeify's dedicated rules article says it has no rules or guidelines around trading news events. Its Essential Trading Rules Overview lists news trading under “Restrictions: Specific rules around major economic events” and links to a full policy that is the same article saying no policy exists. Our record has logged this as an open self-contradiction since 2026-07-28 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it opened by stating there was no news restriction at all — which resolves a disagreement we do not resolve. Someone sizing a position around a major release deserves to know the firm's own pages do not agree. The summary now states both positions and frames the dedicated article as our planning assumption rather than as Tradeify's settled rule. No rule value changed: the structured policy field is untouched and still needs a page read.

Correction: our Tradeify daily-loss summary presented a disputed 150K figure as settled and omitted the Select Daily ladder

Tradeify's Growth evaluation article gives the 150K a $3,750 daily loss limit; its Daily Loss Limit article gives $3,000. Our record has logged that since 2026-07-23 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it gave a flat $600 to $3,000 range, presenting $3,000 as settled while the structured plan data deliberately leaves the 150K null. The same range also began at $600, which is only the Growth and Lightning floor — Select Daily funded accounts start at $500, and their whole ladder was missing. The summary now gives the per-plan ladder, names the 150K disagreement with both figures, records that accounts bought before 2026-03-31 keep $3,750, and states sizing to $3,000 as our assumption rather than Tradeify's rule. No structured value changed.

Correction: our FXIFY targets summary did not mention that FXIFY's own pages give the Lightning plan two different windows

FXIFY's Lightning FAQ gives 5 trading days to hit the target; its how-it-works page says 7. Our record has logged that since 2026-07-23 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it described only the two-phase account and never mentioned Lightning. Plan for 7 when it is 5 and you fail on the calendar, not on trading. The summary now states both figures and says to plan on 5. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our Bulenox drawdown summary did not mention that Bulenox's own pages give the Fast Track $50,000 two different drawdowns

Bulenox's pricing page gives the Fast Track $50,000 a $2,500 drawdown and names no daily loss limit; its Fast Track help article gives $2,250 on both risk models and adds a $1,200 daily loss limit and a 4-mini cap on Option 2. Our record has logged that since 2026-09-08 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it gave only the size range and never mentioned the $50,000 disagreement. Sizing off the pricing page alone can put you over a limit you did not know applied. The summary now states both positions and says to size to $2,250. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our FXIFY drawdown summary folded a disagreement between FXIFY's own pages on the 1-Phase into a 4–10% range

Two of FXIFY's rules FAQs give the 1-Phase a 6% maximum drawdown; its how-it-works page says 10% trailing. Our record has logged that since 2026-07-21 and the conflict card renders, but the summary's "4–10% by program" range reads as if FXIFY stated 10% for the 1-Phase without dispute. Four percentage points of room across the whole account. The summary now names the disagreement and says to size to 6%. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our TradeDay summary did not mention that TradeDay's own pages disagree on the Fast Pass minimum

TradeDay's pricing cards give the Fast Pass a 3-day minimum; its how-it-works page and rules FAQ say there is none. Our record has logged that since 2026-07-23 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it described only the 50K and never mentioned the Fast Pass. A minimum is exactly what a Fast Pass is bought to avoid. The summary now states both positions and says to plan on 3 days. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our E8 drawdown summary never mentioned that E8's own help articles disagree on E8 One's default limit

Two of E8's own help articles give different default max drawdowns for E8 One: the Dynamic Drawdown article says 6% (customisable 4–14% at checkout), the E8 One product article says 4%. Our record has logged that as a conflict since 2026-07-21 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it described the trailing mechanics without a word about the disputed figure — $2,000 of room on a $100K account. The summary now states both figures and says to trade to 4% until you have checked your own checkout. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our Elite Trader Funding summary did not mention that ETF's own pages give Diamond Hands two different minimums

ETF's Diamond Hands plan page says a minimum of 5 trading days; the homepage plan-comparison strip says 10. Our record has logged that since 2026-07-23 and the conflict card renders, but the summary beside it described only the 50K plans and never mentioned Diamond Hands — so the card sat next to prose about a different product. Asking for a payout a week early gets it refused. The summary now states both figures and says to plan on 10. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our MyFundedFutures summary applied the 50% consistency rule to the Builder evaluation, a point MFF's own pages dispute

MFF's consistency article names the Rapid, Flex and Pro evaluations; its Builder guides say "evaluation consistency: None". Our summary said the 50% rule applies "in evaluations" without qualification, which takes the covering side for Builder next to a conflict card saying the scope is contested. The summary now names the evaluations the article covers, states the Builder disagreement, and says to trade a Builder evaluation as if the cap applied. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our Take Profit Trader summary presented the consistency goal as settled, and PRO's missing rule as confirmed

TPT's own consistency rule computes the raised profit goal two ways: the formula implies twice the best day ($4,000 after a $2,000 day), the worked example sets it at twice current net P/L ($6,200 on $3,100). That is $2,200 apart, and TPT does not say which its dashboard enforces. Our summary stated the 50% rule cleanly beside a conflict card saying the computation is contested. It also said PRO and PRO+ "have none", when all we have is that their rules articles do not list one. The summary now states both computations, says to plan on the higher figure, and describes PRO and PRO+ as not listing a rule rather than as having none. No rule value changed. Neither page was re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: we told readers FT+'s advertised 100% split "is accurate"; FT+'s own help centre documents no tier above 90%

FT+'s homepage advertises a profit split of "up to 100% via add-ons". FT+'s help-centre Profit Split article documents the ladder starting at 80/20, rising to 90/10 at the 20% milestone, and stopping there - it describes no 100% tier at all. Our record has logged that as a conflict. The published summary did not merely omit the disagreement. It described a 100% lifetime tier at 30% profit and then added, in our own voice, "so the advertised up-to-100% is accurate" - an explicit adjudication in favour of the marketing page over the firm's own documentation, published in five languages next to a conflict card saying the ceiling is disputed. That is the clearest breach of this corpus's second rule we have published. The summary now describes the ladder to 90/10, states that FT+'s homepage and help centre disagree above that point, and tells readers to treat 90% as the ceiling they can point to in writing and 100% as unconfirmed until FT+ documents it. What this costs is money rather than an account, which is why this is filed MINOR: a trader choosing FT+ on a 100% headline may find the documented path stops at 90%. Both pages were read on 2026-09-07 and were NOT re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: we split FundingPips' news penalty by stage; its own page does not, and the difference is the whole account

FundingPips' News Trading & Weekend Holding article contains two sentences pointing at different penalties for overlapping conduct. One says "Purposely trading news in both evaluation and master phase is prohibited and will lead to account closure". The other says profits from trades opened or closed within the restricted window "may be deducted". The only thing separating losing one trade's profit from losing the entire account is the word "purposely", which the article never defines. Our record logged that conflict on 2026-09-16 and the conflict card renders. But the published summary went further than the source does: it assigned closure to the evaluation stage and profit deduction to the funded Master stage, as though the article drew that line. It does not - both sentences are written to cover both phases. Splitting the penalty by stage was our inference presented to readers as the firm's rule, in five languages, next to a card saying the question is unresolved. The summary now quotes both sentences, names "purposely" as the undefined word the whole difference rests on, and says to plan on the penalty being the whole account. The 5-minute window, the entire-profit forfeiture on a funded Master account and the stricter 10-minute FundingPips Zero rule are unchanged - only the penalty framing was wrong. The article was read on 2026-09-16 and was NOT re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: two of The5ers' own pages put the High Stakes daily loss limit at 3%, and we were publishing a flat 5%

The5ers publishes the High Stakes daily loss limit as two different numbers. The 2-Step Plan Rules & Specifications page, last updated 7 September 2026, gives it as 3% of the previous day's closing balance or equity. The Summer Plan page also gives 3%. The High Stakes general-rules page, last updated 10 August 2026, gives 5%. Our record has carried that disagreement since 2026-09-15, in the confidence field, which says in as many words that 3% remains the safer assumption. But the confidence field is not rendered. What readers saw, in all five languages, was a flat 'hard 5% daily limit' with no sign that two of The5ers' own pages say 3%. This is a worse version of the usual defect, because the number we published is the looser of the two. A trader sizing to 5% on an account whose real limit is 3% does not merely lose the difference - the limit is hard, and hitting it terminates the account. On a $100,000 account that is $2,000 of daily room between the two readings. The summary now states the disagreement in all five languages and says plainly that 3% is the number to trade to. 5% stays the published figure because changing a rule value requires reading the firm's page, and this run had no network access to any firm page: the three pages behind this were read on 2026-09-11 and 2026-09-15 and were NOT re-read today. Whether 5% should be replaced by 3% is the first question to settle on the next successful read of the5ers.com.

Correction: we published Maven's Instant accounts as exempt from the news rule; Maven's T&C says the rule covers all accounts

Maven's Terms & Conditions state the 2-minute news window applies "For all accounts". Maven's FAQ and support article state "The News rule does not apply to our instant accounts". Both are Maven's own channels, and our record has logged the disagreement as a conflict since 2026-07-28. The published summary nevertheless ended with a flat "Instant accounts are exempt" - the FAQ's side, stated as settled fact in all five languages. That is a conflict resolved by picking a side, which this corpus does not do, and it picked the side its own conflict note warns against: the note says in as many words that the T&C is the document that governs a dispute, and that trading news on an Instant account trusting the FAQ leaves you with no argument when Maven answers with the contract. The summary now states the disagreement, quotes both of Maven's own sentences in their source language, and says to assume the 2-minute window applies on Instant too. No rule value changed - the window, the take-profit trap, the non-credit of in-window profit and the OMO and Buy Now Pay Later carve-outs are all as before. Both pages were read on 2026-07-28 and were NOT re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page. Re-reading them is worth doing, because this record is the oldest news_trading record in the corpus.

Correction: E8's own pages put the One daily loss limit at 3% and at 4%, and we were publishing only the 3%

Two E8 help-centre articles give different numbers for the same rule. The E8 One product article says the daily loss limit is 3% of the initial balance. The Dynamic Drawdown article puts the default at 4%, and adds that when the drawdown is customised the daily limit is auto-set at 66% of the chosen drawdown. Our record has known this since it was researched: the disagreement was written into an internal research note reading "same CONFLICT as the drawdown record". But that note is English research prose the site never renders, and no conflict record was ever created — so what readers saw, in all five languages, was a flat 3% on One with no sign that E8 says otherwise elsewhere. Taking the side of one of a firm's own pages is exactly what this corpus is not allowed to do. The conflict is now logged as its own record, with both positions and both URLs, and the summary says so. The 3% stays as the published figure because it is the product article's number and the tighter of the two: a trader who respects it is safe under either reading. Nothing about E8's actual rule has changed. What changed is that we no longer present a contested number as settled. On a $100,000 One account the gap is $1,000 of daily room, and the limit is hard — an equity or balance touch closes the account permanently. The two articles behind this were read on 2026-09-07 and were NOT re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page. They already carry a logged conflict in our drawdown record (6% vs 4% default max drawdown), which is where both position URLs come from.

Alpha's help centre and Alpha's blog disagree on the news window for Pro 8% and 10%; our page now says so

On funded Alpha accounts, trading is restricted around listed news releases. Alpha's help centre groups Pro 6%, 8% and 10% under a window running from 5 minutes before to 5 minutes after the release. Alpha's own blog restricts Pro 8% and 10% to 2 minutes either side. Until today our record carried an internal note saying the help centre was "treated as canonical", and published the 5-and-5 window as settled fact in all five languages. That is a conflict resolved by picking a side, which this corpus does not do. The summary now states the disagreement and that it is unresolved. The published window stays at 5 minutes either side — not because we believe the help centre over the blog, but because it is the wider restriction, so a trader who respects it is inside the rules under either version. Breaking it is a soft breach: the account survives, that profit earns no performance fee, and the loss stays yours. One thing is still owed. Every other conflict position in this corpus carries the URL of the page it came from, and the blog URL behind the 2-minute claim was never stored in the record — so this is published as a summary disclosure rather than a formal conflict record. Capturing that URL is the first task on the next successful read of Alpha's site. The help-centre page was read on 2026-07-28 and was not re-read today: this run had no network access to any firm page.

Correction: our own Lucid summary said "per-payout caps by plan and size" while the field the site reads said uncapped

This is a contradiction inside a single record of ours. The Lucid payout summary we publish in all five languages ends with the words "with per-payout caps by plan and size". The structured field the site reads for the same question said the payouts were uncapped. The caps are specific and they were already written down: LucidPro (first/subsequent) $25K $1,000/$1,500, $50K $2,000/$2,500, $100K $2,500/$3,000, $150K $3,000/$3,500; LucidFlex "50% of profit" up to $1,000-$3,000 by size, with a maximum of five payouts per Flex account; LucidDaily daily caps of $6,000 (25K), $8,000 (50K), $10,000 (100K), $12,000 (150K). Two plans are genuinely uncapped and stay that way in the note: LucidMaxx ("daily payouts, no caps") and Direct ("No simulated payout caps"). The sharpest part is the timing. Those LucidDaily cap figures were written into this record on 2026-09-15 and the boolean beside them was left untouched, which is why re-verifying a firm does not drain this backlog on its own — a re-read updates the prose and walks past the derived field. Scope and date: this corrects our own derived field from evidence already verified on 2026-09-15. The firm's page was not re-read today — no firm page could be read today — so the payout record's verified date stays at 2026-09-15 and this entry does not assert the firm's state as of today.

Correction: Bulenox caps its first three payouts by account size; the record we published said it capped nothing

Our Bulenox payout record carried the cap field as uncapped. The prose inside that same record, read first-hand from Bulenox's own Master Account help centre on 2026-07-21, describes a full per-size ladder: "Payout caps on first 3 payouts" at $25K $1,000 / $50K $1,500 / $100K $1,750 / $150K $2,000 / $250K $2,500. This is our error, not a change by Bulenox: the boolean was derived on 2026-07-28 from the split and minimum prose only, while the cap figures live in prose that derivation never read. What it costs in practice: on a $100,000 Master Account each of the first three payouts releases at most $1,750, however far above the $3,100 safety threshold the balance sits. A trader reading "no cap" would plan the first three withdrawals at several times what they can actually take, and Bulenox's own transition rule makes those first three the ones that matter — the move to a live account is offered after three Master payouts. Scope and date: this corrects our own derived field from evidence already verified on 2026-07-21. Bulenox's page was not re-read today — no firm page could be read today — so the payout record's verified date stays at 2026-07-21 and this entry does not assert Bulenox's state as of today.

MyFundedFutures caps Builder at five sim payouts and Pro at $100,000 per user; Rapid, the plan we rank, stays uncapped

Two caps were sitting in our MyFundedFutures research prose where the site does not read them: Builder runs in cycles with "5 sim payouts max" before forced promotion to live, and Pro carries a "max payout per user $100,000". Both are now written into the field the site does read, as a note. The uncapped flag itself is left as it stands, deliberately. It qualifies the headline split we rank, and that is Rapid at 90/10 — the mainstream plan, with daily payouts and no cap of either kind. Flipping the flag would have told every reader of the Rapid row that their payouts are capped, which is not true. This is the same distinction the Topstep correction turned on two days ago, running the other way: a value is only right or wrong once you say which product it belongs to. Nothing here is a change by MyFundedFutures. It is detail we had verified on 2026-07-24 and had not made visible.

Correction: Maven's $10,000-per-30-days cap is in the summary we publish, but the field the site reads said uncapped

Maven's own FAQ carries a withdrawal cap that is not scoped to one plan: "$10,000 per 30-day rolling cycle (per trader)". Per trader, not per account — opening a second Maven account does not open a second allowance. Our record already said so in the summary we publish in all five languages. The structured field the site reads said the payouts were uncapped. This is our error, not a change by the firm: the boolean was derived on 2026-07-28 from the split and minimum prose only, while the cap figures live in prose that derivation never read. Two narrower caps sit alongside it and go into the note: on OMO the first withdrawal is capped at 6% of account balance and the second at 8%. What it costs in practice: a trader on a $200,000 Maven account who has $18,000 in profit and reads "no cap" expects one withdrawal. The cap makes it two, thirty days apart, and the second one is exposed to everything that can happen to the account in between — including the M2 Account Saver, which cuts the split to 50% on a 2% drawdown and deactivates the account on a second. Scope and date: this corrects our own derived field from evidence already verified on 2026-09-07. The firm's page was not re-read today — no firm page could be read today — so the payout record's verified date stays at 2026-09-07 and this entry does not assert the firm's state as of today.

MyFundedFutures drops code CLUB from 50% to 40% on its own coupons page — which is what it was already charging

Yesterday we logged a MyFundedFutures disagreement with itself: its coupons page advertised "CLUB — 50%OFF" while its product pages charged 40% ($209 down to $125). Today that disagreement is gone, and not because we picked a side — the firm changed its own page. The coupons page now reads "40%OFF", "Lifetime Promo", "Unlimited" uses, on "Rapid, Builder, Rapid EOD, Pro". The homepage says the same thing in its own words: "Save 40% On Any Plan With Code CLUB. New to MFFU? Get 50% off your first eval." And there is the reading that matters. The 50% was never CLUB's: it is a separate offer, for new users and only on a first evaluation. For at least ten days the two figures sat on the same page undistinguished, and anyone landing on the coupons page could reasonably have expected a 50% on any plan that they were not going to get. The other half of the conflict we had open since 6 September also disappears: the homepage advertised "4 uses of 50% off with code CLUB" against the coupons page's lifetime wording. Today the homepage names no number of uses and the coupons page says "Unlimited". We mark the conflict resolved by the firm, with its date and the original positions kept intact rather than deleted. The price we rank does not move: the Rapid 50K stays at "$125" against a "$209" list, which is exactly 40%.

FundingPips' 2 Step Flex goes from 0 to 1 minimum trading day on the 85% split, keyed to the purchase date

We published "none" as the minimum trading days on the 2 Step Flex at the 85% split. FundingPips' help article, read first-hand today, no longer says that for new accounts: "1 minimum trading day on the 85% split", in both phases. The rule is keyed to the purchase date, and that is the part to read in full: "Existing Phase 1 accounts and accounts purchased before 26 August 2026 will retain the 0 minimum trading day requirement for the 85% split. Reset and new accounts will require 1 minimum trading day." Phase 2 repeats it: "Existing Phase 2 accounts will retain the 0 minimum trading day requirement for the 85% split. Reset and new accounts purchased on or after 26 August 2026 will require 1 minimum trading day." So two cohorts now coexist. Anyone who bought before 26 August 2026 keeps the 0; anyone buying today, or resetting, needs 1 day. Our field now records both, not one. And note the reset trap: resetting an old account moves it onto the new rule. A precision on the other half: at the 95% split the page says "3 profitable days on the 95% split" — *profitable* days, not minimum trading days. They are different constructs and the second is stricter; our record already had this right and it stands. We are also adding a reward tier we did not carry. On the Master Account there is a monthly 100% option: "Request a Reward with a 100% split every 30 calendar days after the first executed trade on the Master Account.", with two gates — "A 35% consistency score must be achieved: no single trading day can account for more than 35% of total profit." and "At least 7 profitable days to qualify for a reward, each with 0.5% or more profit". It applies only to evaluation accounts purchased on or after 15 August 2026. It is corroborated on the 2 Step Standard and 2 Step Pro articles. The article carries no last-updated stamp. The $529 price of the 2-Step 100K we rank could not be re-verified today: fundingpips.com returns 429 on both the homepage and the product page.

CONFLICT: the same FundingPips page says news trading costs you the profit, and that it closes your account

We are logging a disagreement that lives inside a single FundingPips page. We do not resolve it. Position A, account closure: "Purposely trading news in both evaluation and master phase is prohibited and will lead to account closure." Position B, profit deduction: "Profits made from trades opened or closed within the restricted window around any Restricted high-impact news and speeches on the affected currency may be deducted." Both sentences are in the same article and cover overlapping conduct. A is mandatory ("will lead") and spans both phases; B is discretionary ("may be deducted") and scopes no phase. The only thing separating them is the word "purposely", which the article never defines. A trader has no way of knowing, before placing the trade, which of the two will apply. The page adds that the deduction is not limited to the portion earned in the window: "The full profit of the affected trade is deducted, not just the portion earned during the news window." And that the trader carries the consequences if that deduction breaks a limit: an economic penalty can end in account loss by the indirect route. Our record already described the account closure in the five-language summary, so this is not new information to anyone reading it; what we are doing today is putting the disagreement on the record and in view, with both positions and their links. While there we corrected an internal note about the windows: the page gives 5 minutes before and after for news, but for speeches it gives "10 minutes before the speech begins to 10 minutes after it ends", which is an open-ended window. On FundingPips Zero it is 10 minutes either side and the position cannot even be held. The article carries no last-updated stamp.

Tradeify adds a 300K Select size with an $8,000 end-of-day drawdown

Tradeify's Select line has a new size that was not in our record. Its help article, read first-hand today, gives for the $300,000 account: price "$349", profit target "$14,000", maximum drawdown "$8,000 (End of Day)" and daily loss limit "$4,000". The article carries an "Updated over 2 weeks ago" stamp. The mechanism is the same as Tradeify's other current plans and is worth not misreading: the threshold only recalculates at the close, but it is enforced in real time, so touching it intraday breaks the account all the same. Nothing changes for the Growth 50K we rank, which remains a different product with its own ladder. We are adding it because publishing a line with a size missing is the same class of gap we have been correcting all week. The Select marketing page does not list it yet: it appears only in the help centre, where the Select article describes it as "$300,000 (limited release)".

Correction: Topstep states no minimum trading days; we published a 0 the firm never said

We published "0 minimum days" for Topstep's Trading Combine. The current Combine parameters, read first-hand today, state no minimum-trading-days figure at all. That 0 was our inference, not the firm's statement, and the difference matters: "we checked and there is no rule" and "we could not establish it" are not the same claim. The field becomes not stated. What Topstep does say, in its own words, is different and more useful: "You can pass in as few as two days, but keep your best day below 55% of your Profit Target." The firm itself describes two days as the practical floor for passing, and ties it to the 55% consistency rule we corrected yesterday. Anyone planning around a 0 would be counting on a single-day route that Topstep's page does not describe. We are also adding a first-payout route we did not carry. On activating the Express Funded Account you choose a path: "When you activate your XFA, you choose Standard or Consistency as your Payout path." The Consistency path requires "A minimum of 3 trading days with at least 1 trade per day" and that "Your Consistency % must be 40% or below to be Payout eligible". It is an alternative to the Standard path's five winning days of $150+, and on a small account it can arrive considerably sooner. The consistency article carries an "Updated yesterday" stamp and the Combine parameters "Updated this week", consistent with the 50%-to-55% change we logged yesterday. The per-size profit targets were not re-served on that page today and are kept un-re-verified.

Correction: Topstep's Express Funded payouts are capped after all; we published that they were not

Our Topstep payout record carried the cap field as uncapped. Topstep's own payout policy, read first-hand today, says otherwise: "Max Payout per request: 50% of your account balance up to the cap below." The caps run by account size and by payout path. On the Express Funded Account, Standard path: $50K "$2,000", $100K "$3,000", $150K "$5,000". Consistency path: $50K "$3,000", $100K "$4,000", $150K "$6,000". The uncapped sentence does exist, but it belongs to a different account: "Live Funded Account Payouts are not capped." We published it without that qualifier, which asserted it of the Express Funded Account — the stage every Topstep trader passes through first, and precisely where the cap binds. What it costs in practice: on a $50,000 XFA on the Standard path, a balance of $54,000 does not release $2,000 because of the 50% rule, it releases $2,000 because of the cap; and a balance of $60,000 still releases $2,000. The moment the account grows, the binding constraint is the cap, not the balance. The detail was not new to our research: the cap figures were already written into this same section's prose, where the front end does not read them. The field the site does read said there was no cap. This is our error, in the same shape we have now corrected four times this week: a value published without the product it belongs to. The $125 payout minimum re-verified unchanged.

Topstep raised the Combine consistency limit from 50% to 55% of the profit target: your best day can now weigh more

We published the Combine rule as "your single best day of profit must stay at or below 50% of your Profit Target", verified 21 July 2026. Today Topstep's own page reads: "Your single best day of profit must stay at or below 55% of your Profit Target." The article is stamped "Updated today". A second Topstep page, the Trading Combine parameters article, says the same in its own words: "your best single day should stay below 55% of your Profit Target" and "You can pass in as few as two days, but keep your best day below 55% of your Profit Target." The change loosens the rule rather than tightening it. The practical consequence is in the formula: the best day is now divided by 0.55 instead of 0.50, so the total profit required to pass falls. On an account with a $3,000 target, a $1,600 day used to push your required total to $3,200; it now requires $2,909, below the target itself. It is still not a rule that fails you: exceeding it raises the target, it does not break the account. The XFA is untouched. The 40% limit on the Consistency payout path is unchanged, and the standard path still carries no consistency percentage at all — it uses 5 winning days of $150 or more.

Correction: Alpha Capital pays up to 90%, not the 80% we published, and has a fourth product line we did not cover

We published Alpha Capital''s split as a fixed 80%, not varying. Its own product page says otherwise: "Qualified Analysts earn an 80% performance split as standard on eligible simulated profits, rising to 90% on Alpha Direct or with the optional 90% split add-on on eligible plans." The homepage repeats it in its own words: you can "earn up to 90% of your simulated profits", and it lists the "90% performance fee split" as a paid add-on. The 80% remains the standard and is still the figure to plan around, so this does not by itself lower anyone''s cost: the 90% is bought, or comes with one specific product. But publishing 80% as a fixed ceiling was saying that the 90% does not exist, and it does. The line that carries it as standard, Alpha Direct, was also missing from our record: Alpha''s product page now lists four evaluations — Alpha One, Alpha Pro, Alpha Swing and Alpha Direct — and our daily loss section covers only the first three and their variants. Its on-demand performance fee help article, last updated 22 July 2026, adds that on Alpha Direct a 3% profit buffer must be reached first, that a minimum of 1% of gross profits must be left in, and that its best-day rule is 15%, not the 40% of the others. We have not written those rules yet: it is a new line that needs a full section pass, not a patch. A note on price: the Alpha Pro 200K we rank could not be re-verified today. The product page serves no price table at all, only "Evaluation fees start from $27", so the $847 list and $677.60 with ALPHA20 remain the 14 September reading. The three codes were confirmed verbatim, with their declared window "1 Sept – 30 Sept 2026".

Correction: the drawdown we published for Bulenox was also the Qualification account's, not the Fast Track's that we rank

Yesterday we corrected Bulenox''s daily loss limits for this same reason. Today, with the Fast Track page rendering its tables again, the same root shows up in the drawdown. We published a ladder running from $1,500 at $25,000 up to $5,500 at $250,000. Bulenox''s Fast Track page, read first-hand today, gives a different one: $25,000 "$1,000", $50,000 "$2,250", $100,000 "$4,000", $150,000 "$5,500" — identical under Option 1 (trailing) and Option 2 (end of day), and with the same one-time fee on both ($338 / $488 / $648 / $788). The tell is the same as yesterday''s: our ladder included a $250,000 size that Fast Track does not sell. On two sizes the difference runs against the trader and is not small. At $25,000 we published $1,500 of room when it is $1,000, a third less. At $100,000 we published $3,000 where Fast Track gives $4,000 — we were publishing a stricter account than it is. The $50,000 stays as it was, in open disagreement: the help centre says "$2,250" and the pricing page "$2,500". Both are Bulenox''s, we pick no side and keep both positions with their dates. We publish $2,250, which is today''s reading on the product''s own page and the tighter of the two. The Qualification account''s figures stay in the record, now labelled as its own and explicitly marked not re-verified: that page returns HTTP 200 but its tables have not rendered since 8 September, so its numbers remain the 21 July reading. We neither delete them nor treat them as current. We also confirmed verbatim today the daily-loss table we corrected yesterday: Option 1 carries no daily-limit column at all, and Option 2 gives "no daily loss limit" at $25,000, "$1,200" at $50,000, "$2,500" at $100,000 and "$3,300" at $150,000.

Apex sells Legacy accounts on its product page and says on its homepage that they are no longer sold, on the same day

This question had been open in our notes for months: Apex''s legacy products page once said the line was being retired on 1 March 2026, and the account we rank is precisely a Legacy 100K. Today the answer is that it can be bought, and that Apex contradicts itself in writing. The product page is headed "Legacy Accounts – Available Now – Limited Time", offers six sizes across three platforms and serves signup with a working button. No retirement sentence appears on it any more. The price we publish is still exact: "$297/Month" regular, "$29.70/Month" with coupon "SAVENOW" and "$125.00" one-time fee on conversion to a PA. The homepage says both things at once. In a promotional section: "Legacy Accounts Are Back For a Limited Time. Our Legacy Accounts evaluation accounts have returned across 6 balance tiers and 3 platforms. Available only while the promotion lasts." And in its FAQ block, about Legacy accounts predating 1 March 2026: "No longer available for new purchases." We do not resolve which one governs, because both are Apex''s and neither is dated. We record the disagreement. What is operative is that the page that charges you is the product page, and today it charges. A note on the countdowns: the product page''s read "Ends in: 12d 07h 07m 16s" and the homepage''s read "Ends in: 8d 04h 53m 25s" in the same reading. Two different clocks for the same promotion, about four days apart, and neither page publishes an end date. It is not a citable deadline.

Correction: the payout terms we published for Apex are its 4.0 account's, not the Legacy account's, which is the one we rank

The Apex product we rank is the Legacy 100K. The payout terms we published came from the help articles for the 4.0 Sim-Funded accounts, which is a different product with different rules. Reading Apex''s own Legacy article first-hand today, four of the main figures were not ours: The split. We published a flat 100%. Apex says: "Traders are entitled to 100% of the first $25,000 per account they are paid out, and 90% of the profit after that." It is not flat; it drops to 90% past the first $25,000 paid out. The payout cap. We published "hard cap of 6 payouts per PA, then the PA closes". On the Legacy account the six closes nothing: the dollar caps apply to the first five payouts ($1,500 at $25k, $2,000 at $50k, $2,500 at $100k, $2,750 at $150k, $3,000 at $250k, $3,500 at $300k and $1,000 on the $100k Static) and "Starting from the sixth payout, there''s no maximum payout amount, provided the minimum balance threshold remains in the account after the payout." The sixth payout releases the cap, it does not kill the account. That is the exact opposite of what we published. The days. We published 5 qualifying days. Apex requires "at least 8 trading days" with "at least 5 of those 8 days" closing at "a profit of $50 or more", and eight trading days between requests. The consistency rule. We published the 4.0''s 50% rule. Legacy carries a 30% one: "The 30% Consistency Rule ensures that no single trading day accounts for more than 30% of the total profit balance", with the formula "Highest Profit Day ÷ 0.3 = Minimum Total Profit Required", in force through the sixth payout. The $500 minimum was correct and is unchanged. The 4.0 figures stay in the record, labelled as the 4.0''s and unpublished, so they are not lost. This is the same framing error we corrected yesterday on Bulenox and The5ers: a figure that is right for one product, published against another. Each of the three was internally plausible, which is why none of them stood out.

MyFundedFutures' Rapid 50K price with code CLUB rose from $105 to $125, and the firm contradicts itself about what that code is worth

Yesterday we verified the Rapid 50K at $105. Today MyFundedFutures'' Rapid plan page reads "$50K (Most Popular) — Starting at $125" against a list price of "$209", with code "CLUB" and the note "Based on current promotions". The list price has not moved; the discount has. We have corrected the row to $125. There is a contradiction about that code on the firm''s own pages, and we log it without resolving it. Its coupons page advertises "CLUB — 50%OFF", lifetime, valid on "Rapid, Builder, Rapid EOD, Pro" with no expiry. But the product pages compute something else: $209 to $125 is 40%, and on the 25K Rapid EOD, $145 to $87 is also 40%. We do not pick a side: what the plan page charges is $125, and the 50% advertised on the coupons page does not appear in any price served today. The row also did not carry Rapid EOD, a line the firm now sells with its own pricing ($145 list, $87 with CLUB at the 25K size) and which we do not cover in any section.

FXIFY's code moved from CHART20 at 20% to CHART30 at 30%, and the old one is still hanging in a banner on the same page

We were tracking the code CHART20 at 20% since 6 September. Today FXIFY''s own coupon page publishes "CHART30", described as "THIS MONTH''S OFFER: 30% OFF ALL PROGRAMS (excl. Instant Lite)" and carrying "Expires: 1st October 2026". The exclusion is Instant Lite, so the 2-Phase we rank is covered. Alongside it the page serves "ONESTEP35", "NEW TRADERS: 35% OFF 1-PHASE", expiring 31 December 2026, and a 5% affiliate code for referrals of Tier 2 and above affiliates. CHART20 has not gone away: it still appears in a banner at the foot of that same coupon page, with no terms or expiry detailed, while the body of the page documents CHART30. We record both states and do not decide which one the checkout honours — we did not touch it. A caveat on the figure we publish. The 30% is verified today on FXIFY''s page. The $2,950 list price of the 2-Phase 400K is our reading of 6 September, and FXIFY serves it on no readable page today: its configurator computes the total in the browser and never delivers it. So the $2,065 the table now shows is a calculation against our last verified list price, not a figure quoted by FXIFY. We previously published $2,360, which was 20% off that same list.

Correction: we published the LucidFlex 50K at $74.50 off a $149 list. Lucid's own catalogue sells it at $136 with no discount active

This row had gone un-re-verified since 24 July 2026, the oldest in the table, because Lucid''s product pages render the product label but inject the price with JavaScript and never deliver it to the reader. Today we read the price straight from Lucid''s own catalogue, the public endpoint of its store, which does return a labelled figure per product: "LucidFlex 50K Rithmic" and "LucidFlex 50K TDV/NT" both come back with price 13600 and currency_minor_unit 2 — that is $136.00 — with regular_price equal to sale_price and on_sale false. We published $149 list and $74.50 discounted. Neither figure appears in the catalogue, and on_sale false says no discount is being applied to the list price today: the $74.50 assumed a 50% that Lucid is not applying. Our figure was 45% below what the account costs. Corrected to $136 list and $136 effective, with no code. The full LucidFlex ladder the same catalogue returns: 25K $79.00, 50K $136.00, 100K $258.00, 150K $372.00; resets 25K $55.00, 50K $95.00, 100K $180.00, 150K $260.00. The VAULT code remains unresolved: Lucid advertises it on its homepage with the line "FOR THE BEST DEAL" and publishes its percentage on no readable page, so we do not carry it in the row. If VAULT discounts anything, it would apply at the cart and your real cost would be below the $136 we publish.

Alpha Futures says the first 10% of outstanding Premium payouts has been paid and that it is selling evaluations again on a different platform — its account of July, in its own words

A post on Alpha Futures' own site, "Alpha Futures Update: Partner Exit, Invoices, and Premium Accounts (July 2026)", was not on our record. Read first-hand today it says: "all of you in 'approved for pay' on Premium Plans will be paid", "The first batch which equates to 10% of outstanding Premium Account payouts have been made today", and "Active Premium Account users are still receiving refunds as well, that has not changed." On the platform it says its former partner gave notice that "services would be terminated regardless of the payment being made or not and we would not be able to create accounts on their platform during the next 90 days starting on July 12, 2026" — a 90-day window, not a permanent shutdown — and attributes the split to "an unhealthy relationship rooted in our development of AlphaTrader". It describes a dispute over "over $2.4M in overcharges" settled in February 2026, "$225,700 was left in limbo", and "$1.2M paid on July 6, 2026". The firm's homepage today is live and selling evaluations under the banner "TRADINGVIEW POWERED BY PLUS500 · 50% OFF ALL EVALUATIONS USE CODE: TRADINGVIEW", with AlphaTrader, WealthCharts and Quantower listed alongside. Two things we are not doing with this. We are not treating a firm's statement that it is paying people as evidence that anyone was paid: it is the firm's claim and it is published here as the firm's claim. And we are not dating it: the post's footer reads "June 15, 2026" while its own text describes events of 6, 9 and 12 July 2026, so we record both and resolve neither. Alpha Futures' health state is unchanged by this entry.

The5ers' own 2-Step page sets a $250 minimum and a $2,000 cap per payout cycle; the figure we publish is a $150 minimum with no cap

The5ers' 2-Step plan rules page — the page for the exact product we rank, the High Stakes 2-Step $100,000 — states: "You need a minimum PnL of $250 in profit to request a withdrawal. The payout cap is $2000 per payout cycle." Our payout record carries a $150 minimum, taken from The5ers' own withdrawals help page, and it carries capped_payouts: false. Both positions are recorded today as a conflict rather than reconciled, because only one of them could be read: help.the5ers.com would not open on any attempt this run, so the $150 stands as last read on 2026-09-07 and is neither confirmed nor withdrawn. What is not in doubt is the cap: a firm's own product page saying "The payout cap is $2000 per payout cycle" cannot sit alongside a record of ours claiming the firm caps nothing, so that flag is corrected today. The same page also states a funded-stage consistency rule we did not carry — "Once you pass both Phase 1 and Phase 2 and receive your live $100,000 funded account, a 50% consistency requirement will apply to your trading" — against "There is no consistency rule during the evaluation phases for the 2-Step plan."

Tradeify cut its Select Flex payout caps for accounts bought after 1 September 2026 — and the record we published said Tradeify capped nothing

Tradeify's own payout-policy article, read first-hand today, now carries two ladders separated by a purchase date: "Accounts Purchased After September 1st, 2026 will have the following payout caps" and, for the older ones, "Payout Caps (This only applies to accounts purchased before Sep 1st, 2026)". On Select Flex the cap fell at three of the four sizes: $50,000 from $3,000 to $2,500, $100,000 from $4,000 to $3,500, $150,000 from $5,000 to $4,500, with $25,000 unchanged at $1,250. On Select Daily two sizes rose instead: $50,000 from $1,000 to $1,250 and $100,000 from $1,500 to $1,750, with $25,000 ($600) and $150,000 ($2,500) unchanged. The split ("90 Trader / 10 Tradeify"), the cadence ("Every 5 winning days") and the minimum ("Minimum Payout: $250") are unchanged. The cut is invisible to anyone already funded — it applies only to what you buy from now on. Published alongside it, a correction of ours: our own payout record carried capped_payouts: false for Tradeify while the text of that same record described per-payout caps at every size. The flag is corrected to true today. The article shows no absolute date, only "Updated this week", so we date this entry to our reading and not to Tradeify.

The daily loss limits we publish for Bulenox are the Qualification account's, not Fast Track's — and Fast Track is the account we rank

Bulenox's Fast Track help page, read first-hand today, sets out its own daily ladder under Option 2 (the end-of-day plan): $25,000 carries "no daily loss limit", $50,000 "$1,200", $100,000 "$2,500" and $150,000 "$3,300". Option 1, the trailing plan, carries no daily loss limit at any size. The figures we have been publishing — $400 at $10,000 rising to $4,500 at $250,000 — come from a different page, /help-center/qualification, and they include two sizes ($10,000 and $250,000) that Fast Track does not sell. The Bulenox product we rank is the Fast Track $50,000, and for it Bulenox's own page says $1,200, not the $1,100 we published. Today the record is rewritten so that the Fast Track ladder is attributed to Fast Track and the Qualification figures are attributed to the Qualification account. We have not merged them and we have not picked between them: the Qualification page's table did not render on any read today, so its figures stand as last read on 2026-07-21 and are not treated as re-verified.

FundedNext bans Expert Advisors on Stellar 2-Step accounts of $50,000 and above — the threshold lands exactly on the size we track

FundedNext's own help article for the Stellar 2-Step Challenge states: "You are free to use Expert Advisors (EAs) and custom indicators to support your trading strategies on account sizes below $50,000, as long as their settings are aligned with your account's parameters. EA usage is not permitted on account sizes of $50,000 and above — traders on these accounts must trade manually." The threshold is inclusive and it falls exactly on the product we track, the Stellar 2-Step $50,000. At that size the ban applies and the account must be traded by hand. Anyone buying this evaluation in order to run an automated strategy is buying the wrong product. Our record did not carry this. The copy-trading section, last verified on 23 July, described the firm's tooling as limited with no size threshold and said nothing about Expert Advisors at all. That section now carries the rule. We are not dating the restriction. The article is stamped "Updated this week" and shows no date, so we can say what the rule is today but not when FundedNext introduced it, and we have not recorded it as taking effect today. Two values on the same article were re-read and are unchanged: copy trading is "Allowed between Challenge Accounts owned by the same trader" and "Strictly prohibited between accounts owned by different individuals"; and the minimum is "You must place trades on at least 5 separate trading days, with a minimum of 1 trade per day in each phase." One thing to know before acting on this: FundedNext has served no price attached by name to the Stellar 2-Step $50,000 on any readable page for three consecutive days. The rule is verified from the firm's own help centre; the price on our row is not.

Correction: we said FTMO's own page gives two regular prices for one $100,000 account. It does not — the €499 belongs to FTMO's 1-Step ladder, and we withdraw the conflict

Yesterday we published, as part of our currency correction, that FTMO's promo page states two different regular prices for the same $100,000 two-phase Challenge: a struck-through €540 and a €499 in the two-phase table. That was our misreading, and we are withdrawing it. Re-read today, the page carries two separate ladders, each labelled by FTMO. The first is headed "2-Step FTMO Challenge": the $100,000 shows €540 struck through against a "Special Deal! $100,000 FTMO Challenge (FTMO Standard account only) for €439 – only if you don't already have one active". The second is headed "1-Step", badged "New": its $100,000 is €499, labelled "Best value". The €499 is the 1-Step price. FTMO does not give two regular prices for one product, and it was wrong of us to say it did. What stands from yesterday's entry is the part that mattered: the fee is denominated in euros, not dollars. No FTMO page has rendered a US-dollar price for this product in seven consecutive daily checks. Our tracked figure stays €540, which is the struck-through regular for the 2-Step $100,000 on FTMO's own page. The €439 is a conditional offer rather than a discount code — it is open only to traders who do not already hold an active Challenge — so we do not apply it to the ranked price.

Take Profit Trader is running two different "lifetime" discounts at the same time on its own pages: NOFEE40 at 40% and NEWYEAR50 at 50% — logged as a conflict

We attach NOFEE40 to our tracked Test 150K row, and today it is still live on Take Profit Trader's own landing page: "a 40% lifetime discount on all test account sizes", which also removes the PRO activation fee. On a different Take Profit Trader landing page, read the same day, the firm offers "50% lifetime discount" under code NEWYEAR50, together with no daily loss limit on Test, PRO and PRO+ accounts, and the line "50% off only available for a limited time when you use code NEWYEAR50". Neither page carries a date, and a code named NEWYEAR being described as limited-time in September is exactly the kind of claim we cannot check. We are keeping NOFEE40 on the row rather than moving to the better number, and we are not deciding which discount a buyer actually receives. The reason for caution is on the firm's own site: its blog post announcing NOFEE50, which states its own expiry as 17 May 2026, is still published and still reads in the present tense nearly four months later. A promotion being served by Take Profit Trader is therefore not evidence that it is current. Separately, and this limits both codes equally: no Take Profit Trader page has served a price for the Test 150K in four consecutive daily checks, so there is no base figure to apply either discount to.

MyFundedFutures' own Terms apply the 7-day inactivity rule to evaluation accounts too, and make closure a breach — we had it on record as sim-funded only

Section 7 of MyFundedFutures' Terms states: "If a User does not execute at least one (1) trade per seven (7) consecutive calendar day period, whether in an Evaluation Account or a Sim Trading Account, the Company may, in its sole discretion, deem the applicable account dormant, close it, and treat such closure as a breach of these Terms." Two things there go further than what we published. The rule covers evaluation accounts, not only sim-funded ones, so an evaluation you have already paid for can be closed after seven quiet days. And the consequence is stated: the account is closed and the closure is treated as a breach of the Terms, where our record said the consequence was not stated. We have carried this rule since 2026-07-23 as a sim-funded rule with no stated consequence, taken from the help centre. The help centre is still the narrower of the two: its Rapid EOD 50K article gives the window as "7 Days" in both the evaluation and the sim-funded tables but never says whether the clock counts trades or logins. The Terms are the page that answers it, and the answer is trades — logging in does not reset it. Enforcement is discretionary on the firm's side ("may, in its sole discretion"), and the Terms page carries no effective date, so we cannot say when this wording took effect. Our record is corrected today in all five languages.

Correction: we published FTMO's 100K Challenge fee as $540. FTMO's own page prices that exact product at €540 — the figure was right, the currency was not

Our offers row for the FTMO Challenge 100K has carried "$540" since 2026-07-24. FTMO's own promo page prices exactly that product — the $100,000 FTMO Challenge, the two-phase Standard account whose fee it calls a "One-time refundable fee" reimbursed with the first reward — in euros. The page serves a struck-through regular price of €540 against a special deal: "$100,000 FTMO Challenge (FTMO Standard account only) for €439 – only if you don't already have one active". The number we published was right; the currency symbol in front of it was not. On a site whose whole purpose is comparing true cost across firms, a euro price shown with a dollar sign gets compared against genuine dollar prices and understates what a buyer actually pays. We have corrected the currency and kept the figure at 540, because €540 is what FTMO's own page states as the regular price for this exact product. We have not converted it into dollars: a conversion is a computed number rather than a published one, and it would move every day. Two things stay open and we are not picking between them. The same page's own two-phase table serves the $100,000 at €499, not €540, so FTMO states two regular prices for one account on one page. And no FTMO page has rendered a price in US dollars in any of our last six daily checks, so there is no dollar figure for this product to source at all.

Elite Trader Funding's own pages give two different prices for keeping a funded account: $80 a month in the help centre, $87 on the product site — logged as a conflict

This is a cost that does not appear in our tracked row at all, and Elite states it twice at two different prices. The help centre says: "Once qualified, Elite sim-funded accounts have an $80.00 USD recurring monthly fee." It gives a one-time activation alternative by size and plan — $150 (1Step) and $175 (EOD) at 75k and below; $235 (1Step), $255 (EOD), $175 (Static) and $300 (Diamond Hands) at 100k and above. Elite's product site gives a different set on the same day: "$87 / month", with one-time activation "1-Step 50K $177, 100K $247, 100K Diamond Hands $307", plus a "Double Down Deal (3D)" from $47. Both were read first-hand today, both are Elite's own, and neither page carries a date. We are not picking a side, and we note that our own file already records the help-centre copy as lagging the product site on a different rule — that is a reason to be suspicious of the help centre, not evidence about this price, and we are not treating it as settling anything. What matters for cost either way: passing an Elite evaluation does not end what you pay. The funded account then costs either a recurring monthly fee or a one-time activation, and our published evaluation price does not include it.

Correction: we published a $20,000 drawdown for the Alpha Pro 200K; by Alpha's own rules it is $12,000

Our Alpha Pro 200K (6%) record carried a maximum drawdown of $20,000. That is our error, not a change at Alpha. The firm's own rules page orders the Alpha Pro plans by drawdown and describes ours as "6% static", with a "3%" daily loss; its own cost post names the product "Alpha Pro 200K 6%" at a $847 fee, which is exactly the fee we track. 6% of $200,000 is $12,000. The $20,000 we published is 10%, i.e. the Alpha Pro 10% variant: a different product. Anyone sizing risk off our figure would believe they had 67% more room than they do and would breach far earlier than planned. Corrected to $12,000 and published as a dated entry rather than edited silently.

Bulenox has a second contradictory price ladder, now on Momentum: its help centre charges more than its pricing page at every size

We already had it on record that Bulenox publishes two different prices for the Fast Track 50K ($175 on the pricing page, $488 in the help centre). The same disagreement now appears on Momentum, and it is not the same number repeated. The pricing page serves Momentum in two sizes only: $100,000 at "$215" and $150,000 at "$325". The help centre serves four: $25,000 at "$94", $50,000 at "$143", $100,000 at "$248" and $150,000 at "$358". So the help centre charges $33 more on the 100K and $33 more on the 150K, and additionally sells two sizes the pricing page does not offer. Both ladders are Bulenox's own and neither presents itself as a discount of the other. We do not pick a side. With two products now disagreeing with themselves, Bulenox's true cost cannot be computed from its own pages: check the total at checkout.

The two different prices we saw on TradeDay yesterday were not a page fault: they are three different 50K products, all live at once under code TDNEW

Yesterday we recorded that two reads of TradeDay's homepage gave different price ladders for what looked like the same product, and for that reason we left the row alone and did not move its date. Today, with three reads that agree, the explanation turns out to be different and simpler: there is no instability, there are three distinct 50K products served in the same table. Quick Pay - Intraday lists at $131 and comes to $59 a month; Quick Pay - End of Day lists at $175 and comes to $79 a month; Fast Pass - End of Day lists at $189 and comes to $85 a month. All three carry "55% OFF" and the same code, USE CODE "TDNEW", and all three are offered on both Tradovate and Rithmic. All three state a $2,000 maximum drawdown, the difference being that on Quick Pay - Intraday it is calculated "Intraday" and on the other two "End of Day". The row we track is Quick Pay - Intraday, $131 → $59, and it is confirmed exactly as it stood. The $175 → $79 Quick Pay - End of Day is a product we did not have covered.

FundingPips' own site is readable again after four blocked runs, and it states that code HELLO is 20% off a first purchase — not something tied to the 2-Step

fundingpips.com served content today for the first time since 5 September 2026, after returning 403 on four consecutive runs. The homepage states "$529for 100k Account" (rendered without a space, as served), which confirms the price we track. It also states: "Haven't purchased yet? Use code HELLO & Get 20% OFF now on your first purchase!" FundingPips scopes HELLO to a first purchase and names no product, so the assumption we were carrying — that HELLO attaches to the 2-Step — is narrower than what the firm actually says. We have not applied the 20% to the ranked price: whether a first-purchase-only code belongs in a true-cost ranking is a modelling decision that has to be applied the same way across all twenty firms, not settled here. Maximum Loss is stated as "10%" and Maximum Daily Loss as "5%"; no dollar drawdown figure is served.

E8 Markets' own pages disagree about what its own code E8 is worth: the discount page says 10% on E8 One (Forex), the configurator applies 25%

Two E8 pages, both official and both read first-hand today, put different values on the same code. On e8markets.com/e8-markets-discount-code the code "E8" is listed at "10% off" for "E8 Pro (Forex), E8 Signature (Forex), E8 One (Forex)" and "All purchases", with no expiry. On e8markets.com/e8-one the badge reads "25% OFF" and the page adds "Save $122 with code E8 on first order", alongside the 100K pair $488 → $366, which is exactly 25%. So the two pages disagree both on the percentage and on whether the code covers all purchases or only a first one. We record both positions and pick neither. The price we track, 200K $798 → $599, is what the configurator serves at its default setting ("6% Max" drawdown and "80%" split) and is unchanged. The same discount page also publishes a code we were not tracking: "E8PATH", "25% off", "E8 One (Forex), E8 Pro (Forex), E8 Signature (Forex)", "First purchase".

Lucid opens a fifth line, LucidMaxx, whose price depends on how many funded accounts you have blown before

The article "LucidMaxx Eval Pricing" on support.lucidtrading.com publishes a pricing structure we have not seen at any other firm in the corpus: "Pricing is determined by the number of live accounts blown without clearing drawdown." There are four tiers — "0–4 blown", "5–8 blown", "9–12 blown" and "13+ blown" — and the price rises at each one. On the $50,000 account it runs from $180 to $290; on the $25,000, from $110 to $175; on the $100,000, from $270 to $430; and on the $150,000, from $425 to $680. It is worth reading slowly before buying: the same product costs more the worse you have done before. This page is also the only Lucid page serving any dollar figure today. LucidMaxx is a separate line from LucidFlex, so this does not confirm the price we track: our LucidFlex 50K at $149 → $74.50 still carries its 24 July date and has now gone 48 days without being verifiable on the firm's own pages.

Maven publishes a second public code, OMO, at 40% off, on a product line we did not cover

maventrading.com/faqs serves two codes at once today: "Trade Gold Eternal. 10% off with code CODE: ETERNAL" and "40% OFF Omo Challenges with code CODE: OMO". The first is the one we track and it is unchanged: the 2-Step 100K stays at $440, $396 with ETERNAL applied, with "Max Drawdown: 8% (Static)" and "Daily Drawdown: 4% (Based on the higher of your equity/balance at 00:00 UTC)". The second, OMO, applies to the "Omo Challenges", a line we did not have covered. Neither code publishes an expiry date. We have not changed the ranked price, which remains the 2-Step with ETERNAL.

Earn2Trade added the BlackArrow platform to all evaluations at no extra cost

Earn2Trade's own blog, dated 17 August 2026, announces: "BlackArrow is now available for all evaluations at no extra cost, offering smart tools, quick execution, and a highly customizable workspace across desktop and mobile." The firm describes it as "a multi-asset trading platform developed by Nelogica, Latin America's leading investment technology provider trusted by more than 2 million traders worldwide." We have added BlackArrow to Earn2Trade's platform list, which previously held Tradovate, NinjaTrader (Legacy), Rithmic, TradingView and Finamark. The announcement states no pricing or rule change, and we found none when we checked: the Gauntlet Mini 50K is still served at "starting at $170/mo", with a 30% consistency requirement, "No Minimum Trading Days", and a funded split of "50% under $2,250 / 80% over $2,250". One note on our own timing: the post was published on 17 August and we are recording it on 9 September, because it sat behind a fetch block on earlier runs and only became readable today.

Alpha Capital's 48-hour Labor Day codes LABOR40 and LABOR50 are no longer served, exactly as their stated window said

On 7 September, Alpha Capital's discount page added LABOR40 (40% off all plans) and LABOR50 (50% off Alpha Direct only, "not valid on evaluation plans"), described as a 48-hour Labor Day offer. Read first-hand today, neither code appears anywhere in the page body. The three codes carrying a stated 1–30 September window are unchanged and still served: ALPHA20 ("20% off all plans"), FUNDED40 ("40% off Direct plan", Alpha Direct only) and 10KFOR40 ("$10,000 account for $40"). One detail worth knowing before you trust the page: it still carries its "Last updated 7 September 2026" stamp even though its contents changed after that date, so the stamp does not tell you when the Labor Day codes were withdrawn. We never moved our tracked Alpha Pro 200K figure onto LABOR40, precisely because a ranking price whose stated window closes within a day or two of publication is worse than no price at all. That figure stays where it was, on ALPHA20.

Apex's legacy countdown showed the same remaining time three days running, while its homepage countdown went up by almost 13 days overnight

Apex promotes its returned legacy evaluations behind a countdown timer on two of its own pages, and we have now transcribed both on three consecutive days. The legacy-products page served "Ends in: 7d 08h 25m 05s" on 7 September, again on 8 September, and again today, 9 September — the same string, to the second, three days apart. The homepage served "Ends in: 1d 14h 09m 07s" yesterday and "Ends in: 14d 03h 16m 22s" today, an increase of roughly twelve and a half days over twenty-four hours. We are recording what each page served on each date and nothing else; we are not characterising why. What this means for a buyer is narrow and practical: the remaining time these two pages display is not a reliable countdown to a fixed deadline, and neither page should be read as telling you how long the $29.70 price will last. The price itself is unchanged, at "$297/Month" and "$29.70/Month – (with Coupon Code)" under code SAVENOW, with a "$125.00" PA fee. The underlying availability conflict is also unchanged and stays unresolved: the homepage still says legacy accounts are "No longer available for new purchases." on the same page that says "Our Legacy Accounts evaluation accounts have returned across 6 balance tiers and 3 platforms."

FXIFY's 2-Phase page now serves three discount codes at once, including both a 30% and a 20% code for the same programs — correcting what we published yesterday

Yesterday we recorded FXIFY's 2-Phase program page as serving the older code pair ONESTEP30 and CHART20, against ONESTEP35 and CHART30 on the coupon FAQ, the homepage and the Three Phase page. Read first-hand again today, that is no longer what the 2-Phase page serves, so we are correcting it publicly rather than editing it quietly. The page now carries "NEW TRADERS: 35% OFF 1-PHASE" with code ONESTEP35 expiring "31st December 2026", and "THIS MONTH'S OFFER: 30% OFF ALL PROGRAMS (excl. Instant Lite)" with code CHART30 expiring "1st October 2026" — matching the other three pages. But the same page also still carries a separate banner reading "Back to Trading — summer sun is down, charts are back up. 20% off all programs. Use code CHART20." with no expiry date at all. So the disagreement has not gone away; it has moved inside a single page. FXIFY's own 2-Phase page now offers both a 30% and a 20% code, each described as applying to all programs. We do not resolve it. Our tracked figure for the 2-Phase 400K stays at $2,360 on CHART20, the more conservative of the two, and no FXIFY page serves a 400K list price in HTML. Check the total the cart actually honours before paying.

Lucid Trading is running a sitewide code, VAULT, and publishes no discount value for it anywhere we can read

Lucid Trading's homepage serves "FOR THE BEST DEAL USE CODE : VAULT" with a copy button. No percentage and no dollar amount is attached to it on that page, and the LucidFlex product pages serve no price figures at all — the checkout is assembled client-side and we could not read it. So we are recording that the code exists and that its value is not stated. That is a different claim from saying the code has no value, and we are not turning one into the other. Because nothing on Lucid's own pages confirmed our tracked LucidFlex 50K figure of $149 list and $74.50, that figure keeps its earlier verification date of 24 July rather than being re-stamped today; treat it as the oldest price in our table until a checkout read replaces it. Separately, Lucid's homepage now lists four evaluation lines — LucidBLACK, LucidFLEX, LucidPRO and LucidDIRECT — where our record covers LucidFlex only.

The5ers' two pages now agree on the 2-Step $100K prices — the $149-vs-$249 disagreement we logged yesterday is gone, and we have removed the conflict

Yesterday The5ers' Summer Plan page priced the 2-Step $100K 10/5 tier at $249 while its 2-Step rules page said $149, and the two also disagreed about which product the $149 belonged to. Read again today, the Summer Plan page serves "Summer 10/5: $149" and "Summer 8/5: $179", matching the rules page exactly; the $249 now attaches to the 1-Step $100K and to the 200K 10/5, which are different products. We did not resolve this — The5ers changed its own page, so the disagreement no longer exists and the conflict record has been removed rather than settled. Our ranked figure is unchanged: the 8/5 Classic tier at $179, confirmed on both pages again today. The daily-loss disagreement at this firm is separate and still open.

Correction: our tracked $353 for the E8 One 200K is not what E8's own configurator serves — both its pages now show $798, discounted 25% to $599 with code E8

E8 One is a configurable account: the price moves with the drawdown and the payout split you choose. Our row carried $353 without recording which configuration it belonged to, and that omission is our error rather than a price rise by E8. Today both the homepage configurator and the E8 One page serve the $200,000 size as "25% OFF $798 $599" under code E8, at the configurator's default setting of 6% max drawdown and an 80% payout; the $100,000 size is served as "$488 $366". We have moved the row to $798 list and $599 after the code and recorded the configuration alongside it, so the figure can be reproduced. Any E8 One price is only meaningful together with the configuration it was quoted for.

Topstep offers a Responsible Trading Discount of up to $30 a month — but it is opt-in and adds a daily loss limit to the account in exchange

On Topstep's No Activation Fee page the discount is shown as "Save up to $30/month", with "-$10" on the $50K account. It is not a plain price cut: it requires enabling the Responsible Trading Advantage, which adds a "Daily Loss Limit: $1,000" to a 50K account that otherwise has none, and in exchange also gives "DOUBLE Payout Caps". Whether that trade is worth $10 a month depends entirely on how you trade — a daily loss limit is a hard constraint, not a feature, and it is the reason we have not moved our tracked figure onto the discounted price. The tracked 50K No Activation Fee Combine stays at $95 a month with a $0 activation fee; the standard path remains $49 a month plus a $149 activation fee charged once per Express Funded Account earned.

MyFundedFutures announces the end of subscriptions on its own homepage: "No more subscriptions. One-time purchases are here."

The banner reads in full "No more subscriptions. One-time purchases are here. + 4 uses of 50% off with code CLUB." The firm's how-it-works page corroborates it with "A one-time payment as low as $63 depending on current promotions." The announcement carries no date on the page. Two residues of the old model are still live on MFFU's own site and are worth knowing about before you buy: the coupons page still says "Cancel anytime" alongside "One-time payment", and a help article on how to cancel your subscription remains published, still stating "After cancellation, your account will remain active until the end of your current billing cycle". The CLUB disagreement we logged on 2026-09-06 is unchanged — the homepage calls it four uses of 50% off, the coupons page calls it a "Lifetime Promo" — and our tracked $209 list / $105 after code is unchanged.

Bulenox's pricing page and its help centre give different drawdown figures for the same Fast Track $50,000 account, and the pricing page omits the daily loss limit entirely — logged as a conflict

On the pricing page the Fast Track $50,000 shows a $2,500 drawdown, a $3,000 target, a 7-contract limit and "Minimum trading days: None". In the help centre the same account is documented twice, as Option 1 trailing and Option 2 end-of-day, both with a $2,250 drawdown, and the end-of-day option carries a $1,200 daily loss limit and a 4-mini contract limit. So the two pages differ by $250 of drawdown room, and a trader reading only the pricing page would not know that a daily loss limit exists on one of the two risk models, or that the contract limit changes with it. This sits on top of the $175-versus-$488 price disagreement on the same account, which is unchanged today. We are not picking a side on either. The permanent code BULENOX still states no percentage on any readable Bulenox page.

FTMO banners "20% Off" on the $100K 1-Step Challenge while the promo page it links to shows no discount, no code and no original price — logged as a conflict

The banner on FTMO's challenge pages reads "20% Off Special deal on $100K 1-Step Challenge". The promo landing page it points at serves flat one-time fees in euros — $10,000 at €79, $25,000 at €199, $50,000 at €319, $100,000 at €499 and $200,000 at €999 — with no percentage, no promo code, no struck-through original price and no end date anywhere on it. So the page that should evidence the 20% is the page that does not mention it, and a reader cannot tell what the €499 is 20% off of, or whether it is discounted at all. We are not resolving this and have not derived a pre-discount price from the claim. Two things worth noting separately: these are the first FTMO prices to render in HTML in several runs, and they are in euros, so they are not directly comparable to the US dollar figure we carry for the 2-Step, which still serves no price at all.

FXIFY's own pages disagree about its own coupon codes — the FAQ and homepage serve CHART30 at 30%, the 2-Phase program page still serves CHART20 at 20% — logged as a conflict

FXIFY's coupon FAQ, its homepage and its Three Phase page all serve two codes: ONESTEP35 (35% off 1-Phase, expiring 31 December 2026) and CHART30 (30% off all programs except Instant Lite, expiring 1 October 2026). Its 2-Phase program page serves an older pair on the same banner component: ONESTEP30 (30% off 1-Phase) and CHART20 (20% off all programs except Instant Lite), same 1 October expiry. Repeat fetches returned the same answer per URL, so this is a stale page rather than an unstable widget. The tracked row is a 2-Phase 400K, and the 2-Phase page is the one that still says 20%, so we have kept CHART20 and the $2,360 figure with the conflict attached rather than picking the better-looking discount. Budget on 20% and check the total at checkout. Note also that the FAQ carrying the current roster is itself stamped "Last Updated: January 31, 2024". No FXIFY page served a 400K price in HTML today, so the $2,950 list price behind that figure still rests on its earlier date.

FundedNext runs STELLAR50 — 50% off a first Stellar account, restricted to first-time registrations and capped at the first 10,000 users rather than by a date

The firm's own offer page states "50% off your first Stellar Account", with the price already reduced at checkout, and restricts it to "New traders only, first-time registrations". The limit is a quantity, not a deadline: "For First 10,000 Users Only" and "seats are limited". That matters for anyone planning around it — there is no date to work back from, and the offer can close without notice. Only one price renders on the page: Stellar 1-Step $50K at $329.99 struck through to $164.99. Stellar 2-Step, Stellar Lite and Stellar Instant are listed as discounted but serve no figure, so our tracked Stellar 2-Step $50K price is unchanged and still carries its earlier date.

Alpha Capital adds two 48-hour Labor Day codes — LABOR40 for 40% off all plans and LABOR50 for 50% off Direct plans only, both stated valid 7-8 September

Alpha's own discount-code page, stamped "Last Updated: 7 September 2026", now lists five codes. The two new ones are described as a "48-hour Labor Day offer": LABOR40, 40% off all plans, and LABOR50, 50% off Alpha Direct only and "not valid on evaluation plans". The three September codes we already tracked are unchanged and run 1-30 September: ALPHA20 (20% off all plans), FUNDED40 (40% off Direct only, not valid on evaluation plans) and 10KFOR40 ($10,000 account for $40 on qualifying $10K evaluation plans). We have not moved the tracked Alpha row onto LABOR40: the stated window ends today, and a figure that expires the day it is published is worse than no figure. The page also states that "All evaluations use simulated funds in a demo environment. Promo pricing applies to evaluation fees only."

Apex's homepage now carries both sides of the legacy-account contradiction by itself — it says legacy is "no longer available for new purchases" and advertises its limited-time return on the same page

Until now the disagreement ran between two Apex pages: the legacy sales page selling the accounts and the help centre saying they were retired on 1 March 2026. Read first-hand today, the homepage holds both positions at once — it states of legacy accounts "No longer available for new purchases. Not impacted by any new programs. No rules or program changes." while at the same time promoting a limited-time return of legacy evaluations across six balance tiers and three platforms, under "Any Size Evals up to 90% Off | Use code: COUPON "SAVENOW"". The countdown skew also persists and confirms these timers are not fixed dates: the homepage showed "Ends in: 1d 14h 09m 07s" while the legacy page showed "Ends in: 7d 08h 25m 05s" for the same promotion in the same session. Our tracked price is unchanged at $297 a month, $29.70 with SAVENOW. We continue not to resolve this: only a completed purchase would settle whether the product is buyable.

Tradeify documents a 300K Select account: $349, a $14,000 target, an $8,000 end-of-day drawdown and a $4,000 daily loss limit — limited release, no resets, three per user

The account sits above Tradeify's previous largest Select size and its own help article describes it as "a limited release with limited quantity" that "cannot be reset": "Resets are not available at any stage. If your evaluation fails you would need to purchase a new one." The current V2 parameters are $349, a $14,000 profit target, an $8,000 end-of-day evaluation drawdown, a $4,000 daily loss limit, 40% consistency and 16 mini / 160 micro contracts. An earlier V1 of the same size is documented at $449 with a $6,000 drawdown and no daily loss limit — so the cheaper V2 carries the larger drawdown but adds a daily limit V1 did not have. Capped at three per user, with no restock announced.

Tradeify's expired AUG banner is still running a week later, and now offers two different discounts under the same code — logged as a conflict

On 2026-09-01 we recorded that Tradeify's AUG code had passed its stated end date. Seven days later the banner is still being served, and Tradeify's own pages now disagree about what the code does. The homepage reads "50% OFF 2 TIME USE, THEN 30% OFF" with "USE CODE: AUG" and "ENDS 31 AUGUST, 11:59PM EST". The new-broker-pricing page reads "40% OFF 5 TIME USE, THEN 30% OFF" for the same code and the same expired end date, and the select-plan page matches that second version. So one code carries two different first-use discounts and two different use counts, both under a date that passed a week ago. The same new-broker-pricing page is also still serving an older banner for code JULY ending "31 JULY, 11:59PM EST", 38 days expired. A third code appears as the literal unrendered placeholder "Save $X with code DASH" — a template variable, not a value, and we are not recording it as an offer. We are logging the disagreement, not resolving it, and our tracked Growth 50K stays at the $145 list price because no Tradeify page serves a per-size Growth figure we can verify.

The5ers' 2-Step rules page says the daily loss limit is 3% while its own High Stakes rules page says 5% — logged as a conflict

Two of The5ers' own FAQ pages state different daily loss limits for what they describe as the same programme. The 2-Step plan page, stamped "Last Update: September 7, 2026", says "Daily Loss Limit: 3% of the previous day's closing balance or equity". The High Stakes general-rules page, stamped "Last Update: August 10, 2026", says "5% daily drawdown that is taken from the closing equity or balance of your previous day". Both pages describe the same two entry tiers (New at 10%/5% and Classic at 8%/5%), so this is not two different products with two different limits. Both pages agree the maximum loss is 10% of the initial balance. We hold 5% for High Stakes from an earlier reading of the firm's help centre. Per our policy we record both positions and do not pick one: the difference between a 3% and a 5% daily limit is the difference between surviving a bad session and losing the account, and only The5ers can say which is enforced.

Bulenox prices the Fast Track $50,000 account at $175 on its pricing page and at $488 in its own help centre — logged as a conflict

Bulenox's pricing page lists the Fast Track $50,000 tier as "$175one-time", alongside Qualification "$145one-time", Momentum $100,000 "$215one-time" and Momentum $150,000 "$325one-time". Bulenox's own help centre gives a different Fast Track ladder for the same product: $25,000 "$338", $50,000 "$488", $100,000 "$648", $150,000 "$788", described as "The purchase price is a one-time, non-refundable fee: there is no activation fee and no monthly subscription". Neither page presents one figure as a discount of the other — there is no strike-through, no "was", and no promo label on either ladder. We track $175 because that is what the pricing page shows, and we are recording the disagreement rather than resolving it. This matters for anyone comparing costs: $313 separates the two figures on the 50K alone. Related: Bulenox's always-on code BULENOX still states no discount percentage on any page we can read, so neither ladder can be reconciled by applying it.

Correction: our tracked The5ers $100K price of $545 was never firm-current — its own pages now put the 2-Step $100K at $179 (8/5), and disagree on the 10/5 tier

We were ranking The5ers' $100K on $545 with $490.50 "after code". The $545 came from the firm's own X post of 2025-01-16, but the $490.50 was an aggregator's figure, not The5ers'. Ranking a firm on a third-party-derived price is our error and we are withdrawing it. What The5ers' own pages say today: the 2-Step rules page, stamped "Last Update: September 7, 2026", says "The 2-Step plan offers two entry tiers for the $100,000 account" — "New ($149): Phase 1 profit target is 10%; Phase 2 is 5%. Classic ($179): Phase 1 profit target is 8%; Phase 2 is 5%." The Summer Plan page prices the same 2-Step $100K at "$249" for the 10/5 option and "$179" for the 8/5 option, and attaches "$100K Only $149" to the 1-Step, not the 2-Step. So the two pages agree on exactly one figure — $179 for the 8/5 tier — and disagree on the 10/5 tier by $100 ($149 vs $249). Note this also reverses our own 2026-07-29 correction, which recorded $149 as the 2-Step 10/5 price and $249 as the 1-Step; The5ers' page now says the opposite. The /high-stakes/ program page serves no $100K price at all. We are therefore moving our tracked row to the one price both pages support — the Classic 8/5 tier at $179, no code — and logging the 10/5 disagreement as a conflict rather than picking $149 or $249. If you are buying the 10/5 tier, check the total at checkout before paying.

Correction: we had settled Apex's legacy-availability conflict in favour of the sales page — we should not have. Both Apex positions restored, unresolved

Since 2026-07-23 our Apex pricing record has carried this conflict with a resolution attached: "sales page treated as current". That was our judgment, not Apex's statement, and our own rule is never to resolve a conflict by picking a side. We are removing the resolution and publishing this correction rather than editing it away quietly. Both positions, re-read today: the legacy-products sales page is headed "Legacy Accounts – Available Now – Limited Time", prices the 100K at "$297/Month $29.70/Month – (with Coupon Code)" with code "SAVENOW", carries a countdown reading "Ends in: 7d 08h 25m 05s", and serves working checkout links including https://dashboard.apextraderfunding.com/signup/100k-tradovate-legacy. The help centre says "No, as of March 1st, 2026, Legacy evaluation accounts are no longer available for purchase to anyone", adding that "Legacy accounts purchased prior to March 1st, 2026, will not be affected". Both are Apex pages. We cannot tell a buyer which one governs, and we will not guess. What we can say is that the sales page's checkout links resolve and its countdown has been running with a different remaining time on every page we check, including "Ends in: 2d 14h 24m 20s" on the homepage in the same session — so the deadline is not a fixed calendar date. Anyone relying on legacy pricing should confirm at checkout before paying.

MyFundedFutures' homepage calls code CLUB "4 uses of 50% off" while its own coupons page says "Lifetime Promo" — logged as a conflict

The homepage's one-time-pricing banner reads "No more subscriptions. One-time purchases are here. + 4 uses of 50% off with code CLUB." The firm's own coupons page lists the same code as "50%OFF" — "Lifetime Promo", working on Rapid, Builder, Rapid EOD and Pro, with no use limit stated. A 4-use cap and a lifetime promo are different claims about the same code; both sit on MyFundedFutures' own pages, so per policy we log the disagreement without resolving it.

TradeDay introduces a $25K account at $45 — its lowest-priced account ever, with no activation fee

TradeDay's own blog (September 1) introduces a $25K account at $45, described as "The Lowest-Cost TradeDay Account Ever", with "No activation fee", "No minimum trading days once funded" and "No buffer to clear before your first payout", available in QuickPay and Fast Pass variants. Our tracked Quick Pay 50K row is unaffected.

Elite Trader Funding's own promo page lists code GOFUTURES — 80% off the first month of any evaluation except Direct To Funded

Elite Trader Funding's promo-codes page (updated July 2026 per the page itself) lists code GOFUTURES: "80% off your first month" on all evaluation products except Direct To Funded. We do not attach it to our tracked 1-Step 50K row because the discount applies only to the first month of a recurring monthly subscription, not to the ongoing price.

Alpha Capital's Max Risk Rule caps floating losses per asset on funded accounts bought after July 21, 2026 — a breach closes the account

Alpha Capital's help centre states the limit is tracked "per asset, in open drawdown": 3% on $5K–$25K accounts, 2% on $50K–$200K and 1% on Alpha Direct, on Qualified (funded) accounts purchased after 21/07/2026 ("accounts acquired before this date are not subject to it"). Quote: "If your open drawdown on any single asset reaches the maximum risk limit for your account size, your account will be closed." Losing positions on the same asset combine toward the threshold; profitable positions do not offset; a trade closed and reopened in the same direction within 10 minutes combines its losses.

Apex's homepage advertises "NO Payout Denials" while its own payout help article lists conditions under which a payout is denied — logged as a conflict

Apex's homepage markets the rebranded product with "NO Payout Denials". The firm's own EOD payouts help article — the page our payout record is built on — lists conditions under which a payout request is not honored: a balance below the required threshold, failing the 50% consistency-since-last-payout check, or fewer than 5 qualifying trading days. Both statements sit on Apex's own pages; per policy we log the disagreement without resolving it.

Third-party report: LucidFlex 50K list price now $131 with the optional daily loss limit or $146 without — Lucid's own pages do not render prices to confirm

A third-party discount tracker (El Trader Financiado, checked September 4) reports the LucidFlex 50K at a $131 list price with the optional daily loss limit or $146 without it — disagreeing with the $149 list figure last verified on Lucid's own pages on July 24. Lucid's product pages render prices only client-side, so this could not be confirmed from the firm's own channel; the optional daily-loss-limit structure itself is corroborated by Lucid's own help centre. This entry is VERIFIED-SECONDARY — a third-party source, not the firm's own page — and our offers row keeps its last primary-verified figures until a primary read succeeds.

Lucid Trading launches the LucidMaxx evaluation line, priced by tiers based on blown accounts and excluded from all discounts

Lucid's own help centre lists LucidMaxx evaluation pricing: four sizes ($25K to $150K), each with four price tiers set by the trader's number of blown accounts (0-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13+) — the 50K runs from $180 at Tier 1 to $290 at Tier 4; the $25K from $110 to $175, the $100K from $270 to $430, the $150K from $425 to $680. The article states: "No discounts are offered on LucidMaxx evaluations. The listed price is the final price paid." Our tracked LucidFlex 50K row is unaffected.

Instant Funding temporarily cuts leverage to 1:5 on Metals, Oil and Indices for funded accounts

Instant Funding's own site states across its account specifications: "Due to increased market volatility, leverage on Metals, Oil, and Indices is temporarily set to 1:5 on funded accounts only", adding "Standard leverage will be restored once market conditions stabilize." No start or end date is stated.

FTMO banners 20% off the $100K 1-Step Challenge — no code and no end date stated

A site-wide banner on FTMO's own pages advertises "20% Off Special deal on $100K 1-Step Challenge". No code, discounted price or end date appears in the served page text. The offer applies to the 1-Step line, not the 2-Step Challenge 100K we track, so our row is unchanged. FTMO's promo page lists the 1-Step $100K fee at €499 (one-time and non-refundable, unlike the refundable 2-Step fee).

The5ers adds a $2.5K High Stakes tier at $19, marked "New" on the program page

The High Stakes program page now shows a $2.5K account size at $19, marked "New", alongside the existing tiers. Our tracked High Stakes 100K row is unchanged; the 100K price remains client-rendered, so the row keeps its last verified figures.

Bulenox lists a permanent coupon code BULENOX for all account types — the discount amount is not stated on the page

Bulenox's own pricing page states a permanent coupon code BULENOX valid for all account types with no expiration; the homepage calls it a launch offer for Qualification, Fast Track and Momentum Qualification accounts. Neither page states the discount percentage or a discounted price, so no code is attached to our Fast Track 50K row — it keeps the $175 list price until the discounted amount can be verified on the firm's own checkout.

FXIFY's 35FLASH has expired as scheduled — CHART20 takes 20% off all programs except Instant Lite; our tracked 2-Phase 400K moves to $2,360

35FLASH is no longer listed on FXIFY's site after its stated September 3 end date. The current code on FXIFY's own coupon page is CHART20 — "20% OFF ALL PROGRAMS (excl. Instant Lite)", expiring October 1, 2026 — which covers the standard 2-Phase line, so our 400K row moves from $1,917.50 to $2,360 ($2,950 list minus 20%). NEW30 remains live at 30% but its own wording names 2 Phase Pro only, so it is not attached to our standard 2-Phase row.

FundedNext offers 50% off the Stellar Challenge for new traders with code STELLAR50

FundedNext''s own offer page lists STELLAR50: 50% off the Stellar Challenge, for new traders only (first-time registrations, limited to the first 10,000 users), with the discount pre-applied to the prices shown — the Stellar 1-Step 50K appears at $164.99 from $329.99. No end date is stated. The page''s discounted figure for the Stellar 2-Step 50K we track could not be read on this pass, so our offers row keeps the $299 list price until the discounted figure can be verified against the firm''s page.

FTMO launches FTMO Futures in beta: futures accounts on a monthly subscription from $119/month, with an end-of-day trailing drawdown

FTMO's own trading-updates blog dates the launch to 02 Sep 2026 ("FTMO Futures are launched"), followed by a "Futures Trading Update | 3 Sep 2026". The homepage labels the line "Beta Futures". The rules page prices these accounts as a monthly subscription rather than FTMO's usual one-off challenge fee: Growth $119/month (50K), $169/month (100K), $229/month (150K); Pro $139/month (50K), $199/month (100K), $269/month (150K). Profit targets are $3,000 / $6,000 / $9,000. Maximum drawdown is end-of-day trailing — Growth $2,000 / $3,500 / $5,000, Pro $3,000 / $4,500 / $6,000. Growth carries no daily loss limit in the evaluation; Pro has hard limits of $1,000 / $1,500 / $2,000. Consistency is 40% on Growth and 50% on Pro. Sim-funded profits split 90/10, with Growth able to withdraw 50% and Pro 100% of profit above initial capital. Resets cost $109 / $159 / $219. We record the launch at its own date. Note for cost comparison: a monthly subscription does not fit the one-off-fee model our true-cost ranking uses, so FTMO Futures is not comparable to the FTMO Challenge on price without a separate calculation.

Alpha Capital lists September codes: ALPHA20 takes 20% off all plans — our tracked Alpha Pro 200K drops to $677.60

Alpha Capital''s discount-codes page, updated September 2, lists three codes valid September 1–30: ALPHA20 (20% off all plans), FUNDED40 (40% off, Alpha Direct only) and 10KFOR40 (qualifying $10K evaluations for $40). The product page banners "20% OFF All Plans · Use code ALPHA20". Applied to the $847 list price of our tracked Alpha Pro 200K (6%), ALPHA20 brings it to $677.60. FUNDED40 applies to the Alpha Direct instant-funding product, not the Alpha Pro evaluation, so it is not attached to this row.

Tradeify's AUG code has passed its stated August 31 end date — our tracked Growth 50K returns to the $145 list price

Tradeify's AUG code stated an end of "August 31, 11:59 PM EST," which has now passed. The firm's own help-centre pricing reference lists the Growth 50K at $145 with no code, so the offers row returns to that $145 list price with no code. The homepage now shows a new code, DASH, but its discount is not displayed and the homepage renders card prices inconsistently (every Growth size showed the same figure), so DASH is not attached until it can be verified against a reliable page or the checkout.

Code ALPHA30 is no longer listed on Alpha Capital's pages — our tracked Alpha Pro 200K returns to the $847 list price

Alpha Capital's discount-codes page now reads "No codes in this section right now," and the Alpha Pro checkout shows no code applied, so ALPHA30 (which had reduced our tracked Alpha Pro 200K from $847 to $592.90) is no longer active. The offers row returns to the $847 list price with no code until a current code can be verified. The homepage separately promotes DIRECT50 (50% off), but that banner applies to the Alpha Direct instant-funding product, not the Alpha Pro evaluation, so it is not attached to this row.

Maven lists Omo 2-Step challenges with code OMO at 40% off — the $100K Omo shows $472 struck to $284; ETERNAL stays at 10% on the Standard line

Maven's pricing page banners "40% OFF Omo Challenges" with code OMO: the $100K Omo 2-Step shows $284 with the code against a $472 regular price. ETERNAL is documented as 10% off and "refundable on the third withdrawal"; our tracked Standard 2-Step 100K is unchanged at $440 struck to $396 with ETERNAL. The Omo line is first recorded by us today; no end date is stated for either code.

Take Profit Trader retires 50AND3 and banners NOFEE40: 40% off any Test for life and the $130 PRO activation fee waived — our 150K row moves to $216 per month

The homepage banner now reads "Get 40% Off For Life + Never Pay An Activation Fee!" with code NOFEE40, replacing 50AND3 — which the firm's own promo FAQ had limited to August 25. The NOFEE40 FAQ (updated August 26, 2026) states "a 40% lifetime discount off any account and have your $130 PRO account activation fees waived on that account for life!", with unlimited code usage and no stated end date. Applied to the $360 monthly 150K Test, the subscription becomes $216 per month.

FXIFY replaces HOT20 with 35FLASH: 35% off every program except Instant Lite through September 3 — our tracked 2-Phase 400K moves to $1,917.50

FXIFY's own pages no longer list HOT20, which had been stated to run through September 1. The homepage and the two-phase program page now show "35FLASH" — "35% off (excludes Instant Lite)" — expiring September 3, 2026, alongside NEW30 ("NEW TRADERS: 30% OFF 2 PHASE PRO", to December 31, 2026). Applying the firm-stated 35% to the last verified $2,950 list price of our tracked 2-Phase 400K gives $1,917.50; the checkout fee itself renders client-side and could not be re-read today.

The5ers' Summer Plan lists a 1-Step $100K at $249 alongside the 2-Step at $149/$179 — first recorded today, still "Limited Time Only"

The summer-plan page now shows five variants: a 1-Step $100K at $249 (10% target, maximum 2 active accounts), the 2-Step $100K at $149 (10%/5%) and $179 (8%/5%), and the $200K High Stakes at $249 (10%/5%) and $279 (8%/5%). All carry "Limited Time Only" wording with no end date stated. Our 2026-08-26 entry recorded the 2-Step and $200K tiers; the 1-Step variant is first recorded today.

E8 One repriced: the compare page lists the 200K at $353 with "No Crossed-Out Pricing"; code E8 is now documented as up to 35% off depending on the product

E8's compare page lists E8 One at the 80% payout configuration with no activation fee: 5K $22, 10K $39, 25K $84, 50K $128, 100K $216, 200K $353, 400K $707, 500K $884. We previously tracked the 200K at $798 to $719 with code E8; the help centre now describes E8 as "up to 35% off, depending on the product" without per-product percentages, so our row moves to the $353 page price with no code applied. Note: the homepage separately advertises a "$100K Challenge" at $398 struck to $299 while the compare table shows the 100K at $216 — likely different configurations of the product.

MyFundedFutures moves Rapid to one-time pricing with code CLUB (50% off): 50K at $209 struck to $105; code 300K is gone and the 150K price is no longer stated

The Rapid page now says "No activation fee" and "One-time payment, no renewals", shows the 50K at $209 struck to $105, and embeds coupon CLUB (50% off) in every checkout link; the 300K code we tracked has disappeared. Individual prices for the 25K, 100K and 150K sizes are not stated on any readable page ("Starting at $105"), so our offers row re-bases from Rapid 150K ($347/month with code 300K) to Rapid 50K at $209 to $105 one-time. The 150K's trading parameters are unchanged on the help centre ($9,000 target, $4,500 max loss, daily 90/10 payouts).

Apex legacy accounts are purchasable again: six monthly tiers from $16.70 with code SAVENOW and a $125 PA fee — reversing the August 12 retirement

The legacy-products page sells legacy evaluations again as a "Limited-Time Offer" across six tiers on Tradovate, Rithmic and WealthCharts: 25K "$167/Month $16.70/Month – (with Coupon Code)", 50K $197 to $19.70, 100K "$297/Month $29.70/Month" with a "$6,000" profit goal, "$3,000" trailing threshold and "14 (140 Micros)" contracts, 150K $497 to $49.70, 250K $597 to $59.70 and 300K $697 to $69.70. The one-time PA activation fee is "$125.00". The homepage banners "Any Size Evals up to 90% Off" with coupon "SAVENOW" and a countdown showing about 13 days left on 2026-08-26. This reverses our 2026-08-12 entry "Legacy sale over"; our offers row now tracks Legacy 100K at $297/month, $29.70 with SAVENOW.

The5ers Summer Plan: a $100K two-phase challenge for $149, marked "Limited Time Only"

The summer-plan page advertises "Industry's Lowest $100K Only $149" and sells "Summer 10/5 ($149)" — Phase 1 target 10%, Phase 2 target 5% — and "Summer 8/5 ($179)" at $100K, plus $200K at $249 (10/5) and $279 (8/5), all marked "Limited Time Only". Stated rules include a 3% daily loss limit, 1:100 leverage and a 50% consistency requirement. Our tracked High Stakes 100K row is unchanged.

Correction: the 1-Step FTMO Challenge launched on 2026-02-06 — our 2026-08-04 entry recorded first detection, not the launch

FTMO's own blog post "Introducing the 1-Step FTMO Challenge" carries a publication date of February 6, 2026 (last modified April 20, 2026). Our 2026-08-04 entry presented the product as new at that time; it was in fact months old. The terms we recorded — 10% target, 90% split, entry fee not refunded — were and remain correct per FTMO's FAQ.

FTMO runs a promo for the first time in our records: "20% Off Special deal on $100K 1-Step Challenge" — no code or end date stated

A site-wide banner — "20% Off Special deal on $100K 1-Step Challenge" with the CTA "Claim 20% Off" — appears on the homepage and on the 1-Step and 2-Step pages. No coupon string and no expiry are stated on any fetched page. Our tracked 2-Step 100K row is unaffected; its $540 fee could not be re-read today because FTMO renders prices client-side.

FundingPips temporarily bans weekend holding on Master accounts: "Close all trades before Friday market close"

The 2-Step Standard help article now lists a temporary Master Account restriction: "Weekend holds are currently not allowed. Close all trades before Friday market close." Open positions are auto-closed rather than treated as a hard breach. The same article dates the monthly 100% reward cycle as effective August 15, 2026; the four split-for-cadence options we track are otherwise unchanged.

Correction: HELLO cannot apply to $100K accounts — FundingPips says the code "excludes $100K accounts"; our $423.20 tracked price is withdrawn

FundingPips' own Get Started article states: "Apply the code HELLO to get 20% OFF your first purchase. This coupon excludes $100K accounts." We had applied HELLO to the 2-Step 100K ($529 to $423.20); that combination is not possible under the firm's stated terms, so the offers row returns to the $529 list price with no code. The code remains valid for a first purchase on other sizes.

Code INVEST is no longer listed on Instant Funding's pages — our tracked Two-Phase 100K returns to the $539 list price

Checks across instantfunding.com no longer find the INVEST code we tracked ($539 to $441.98). The homepage currently shows a rotating set of other codes whose terms and season labels are inconsistent with each other, and none could be confirmed against the checkout, which renders prices client-side. The offers row therefore shows the $539 list price with no code until a current code can be verified. The 35%-off Clarity promotion and the free $5K giveaway noted in early August are also no longer on the homepage.

FXIFY's Instant Funding line is live on its own site: no evaluation, up to $50K, payouts every 14 days; new code NEW30 (30% off 2 Phase Pro), HOT20 ends September 1

FXIFY's programs page states "NO EVALUATION NEEDED", sizes up to $50K, "Instant Funding accounts offer payouts every 14 days" and a split of up to 90%. On the pricing banners, "NEW30" gives "NEW TRADERS: 30% OFF 2 PHASE PRO" (expires December 31, 2026), and "HOT20" — "SUMMER SALE: 20% OFF (excl. Instant Lite)" — runs through September 1, 2026; HOT20 is the code on our tracked 2-Phase 400K row, whose exact fee could not be re-read today because prices render client-side.

Alpha Capital lists 10KFOR40 again: qualifying $10K evaluations at $40 through August 31

The discount-codes page again lists "10KFOR40" — "$10K for $40" on qualifying $10,000 evaluation plans (Alpha One, Alpha Pro 6/8/10%, Alpha Swing, Alpha Three), dated "1 Jun 2026 – 31 Aug 2026": "Standard $10K evaluations start from $67. This limited offer locks every qualifying plan at $40." Our 2026-08-05 entry recorded the code as no longer listed. ALPHA30 and DIRECT50 continue unchanged through August 31.

Topstep launches the Octagon: a $250,000 monthly leaderboard for Live Funded traders, starting August 2026

Topstep's help centre describes "The Topstep Octagon" as "a monthly leaderboard competition for Live Funded Account (LFA) Traders" with a fixed $250,000 monthly pool: $200,000 across the top 100 by PnL (1st place $75,000) and $50,000 across the top 5 longest winning streaks (1st place $25,000). Enrollment is automatic and bonuses are paid to the account balance the following month.

The5ers adds a Futures program: $25K Day Trade and Swing accounts at a $59 one-time fee, refunded on the third payout

The futures page offers Day Trade and Swing programs on a $25,000 account with a "$59 one-time fee (refunded on 3rd payout)", a 6% evaluation target, 4% funded target, 4% end-of-day max loss and scaling up to $500K, with a "One-time fee structure no monthly fees". The homepage navigation badges the line as new.

Topstep Labs adds a third experiment: the $3K Challenge at $49 one-time — two rounds, a fixed $3,000 payout, no split and no daily loss limit

Topstep's own help-centre Labs article now lists a third limited product alongside the 25K Static ($75) and the 250K Freedom ($499) recorded on 2026-08-15: a $3K Challenge at a $49 one-time fee, launching August 2026, with a two-round structure, a fixed $3,000 payout, no 90/10 split ('you keep all earnings') and no daily loss limit. Labs products are limited drops ('when it's gone, it's gone') and may or may not graduate into the standard program.

Alpha Capital rotates its codes: ALPHA30 (30% off all accounts) and DIRECT50 (50% off Alpha Direct) replace ALPHA20 and FUNDED40, all ending August 31

The firm's own discount-codes page, updated 24 August 2026, now lists three active codes: 10KFOR40 ('$10K for $40'), ALPHA30 (30% off all accounts) and DIRECT50 (50% off Alpha Direct accounts only, not evaluations). ALPHA20 (20%) and FUNDED40 no longer appear. All three end 31 Aug 2026, and the page states codes are removed when their published end date passes. Our tracked Alpha Pro 200K (6%) offer re-bases from $677.60 with ALPHA20 to $592.90 with ALPHA30 off the unchanged $847 list.

Funded Trading Plus' two-step program page drops SIZE20 for FUNDED30 — Classic 100K now $549.00 → $384.30; the homepage's $623.00 list not shown today

On 2026-08-25 the dedicated two-step program page sells the 2-Step Classic $100K at $549.00 with code FUNDED30 at $384.30, replacing the size-tiered SIZE20 path ($439.20) recorded the day before. The homepage still banners '30% OFF Every program. Every account size.' with FUNDED30 but no longer statically renders the Classic $100K card, so its $623.00 list price could not be re-sighted. The list-price disagreement recorded on 2026-08-24 stays open until the firm's own pages converge. Our tracked offer re-bases to the cheapest price on a readable firm page: $384.30 with FUNDED30 off the $549.00 list.

Funded Trading Plus launches FUNDED30 (30% off every program) — the homepage now lists the 2-Step Classic 100K at $623.00 while its program page still says $549.00

The homepage banner reads verbatim '30% OFF Every program. Every account size.' with code FUNDED30. On the homepage cards the 2-Step Classic $100K shows $623.00 crossed out to $436.10 and the 1-Step Express $100K shows $549.00 to $384.30. On the same day, the firm's dedicated two-step page still sells the Classic $100K at $549.00 with the size-tiered code SIZE20 ($439.20), and the compare page lists both Classic and Express at $549.00 with no code. The firm's own pages therefore disagree on the Classic 100K list price — $623.00 vs $549.00 — and we record both without resolving; the discounted price differs by $3.10 between the two paths. Our tracked offer moves to the promoted path: FUNDED30 at $436.10. Note that with the list raised to $623.00, the '30% off' nets out within dollars of the old 20% code on the $549.00 list.

Bulenox relaunches its product line: named tiers with one-time 30-day pricing replace monthly subscriptions; $50OFF is gone, launch code BULENOX arrives

The accounts-pricing page now sells four named tiers — Qualification 25K "$145one-time", Fast Track 50K "$175one-time", Momentum 100K "$215one-time" and Momentum 150K "$325one-time" — each marked "Access valid for 30 days", replacing the monthly-subscription ladder (50K was $175/month, often $125 with $50OFF) still rendered on 2026-08-20. The help centre is reorganized around the new names (Qualification / Fast Track / Momentum / Master / Funded); the old /help/ pages return 404. A single code "BULENOX" is shown site-wide ("Copy it and apply it at checkout — this code never expires"; the homepage calls it a "Launch offer") with no discount amount stated on any readable page — checkout is not statically readable. Trading parameters of the tracked 50K tier are unchanged: 7 contracts, $3,000 target, $2,500 drawdown. Our offers row now tracks Fast Track 50K at the $175 one-time list price with no code applied, because BULENOX's amount is not stated.

MyFundedFutures launches a limited-time Rapid EOD plan: EOD drawdown at both stages, no daily loss limit, daily 90/10 payouts

The plan's own page bills it as temporary: 'This is a limited-time plan — grab it before it's gone.' Rapid EOD uses end-of-day (EOD) drawdown at both stages, evaluation and funded, and applies no daily loss limit ('EOD drawdown at both stages. No daily loss limit.'). It offers daily payouts with a 90/10 split and a $500 minimum per withdrawal. Size sighted today: 50K at a $157 one-time fee, cut to $126 with coupon EOD, no activation fee, and a $2,000 EOD maximum loss. The page publishes no end date and details no other sizes; our offers row keeps tracking the standard Rapid 150K.

Take Profit Trader cuts evals from 5 to 3 days for new tests and launches 50AND3: 50% off for life, no activation fee

The homepage banner reads 'Evals Are Now 3 Days! Get 50% Off For Life + Never Pay An Activation Fee.' with code 50AND3, and the site's own FAQ pins the scope: 'The 3-day eval only applies to new test accounts purchased from August 17th onward. Existing tests and resets are not included.' The test minimum therefore drops from 5 to 3 days on new tests bought from August 17, 2026, while existing tests and resets keep the 5-day minimum. The 50% discount applies to the test's monthly subscription for life and the activation fee is waived; this replaces NOFEE40 (40% lifetime). Against the price list re-sighted today ($150/$170/$245/$330/$360 per month for 25K–150K), the 150K test comes to $180 per month with the code. The verbatim 50AND3 help-centre article was not readable this run; all terms above are from takeprofittrader.com itself.

Correction: the LucidPro evaluation has no minimum trading days — our summary wrongly said '2-day minimum'

Our targets summary for Lucid stated a '2-day minimum' in all five languages while our own data recorded min_days = 0. Lucid's help-centre article, re-verified today, says: 'Pass the evaluation in one trading day' — there is no minimum-day requirement in the LucidPro evaluation. The summary is now corrected in all five languages. The error came from our initial research wave, not from any change by the firm.

New LucidDaily line: daily payouts, 50% eval consistency, and a hard-breach news ban

Lucid's help centre documents a full LucidDaily product line (25K–150K): one-time eval with targets $1,250–$9,000, a choice of intraday or EOD drawdown in the eval (funded is always intraday, MLL $1,000–$4,500, locks at initial balance + $100), fixed soft DLL $600–$2,700 (the 25K has a DLL, unlike other Lucid plans), a 50% consistency gate in the evaluation only, and 90/10 payouts you can request any day (min $500, daily caps $6,000–$12,000). News is the sharp edge: 'Trading U.S high impact red folder news in a LucidDaily funded account is not permitted and is a hard breach' — flat from 1 minute before through 1 minute after; the firm-wide permitted-activities article now reads 'Not allowed on Daily… Allowed on Flex, Pro and Direct'. Eval prices not stated on the help centre.

E8 Zero (Starter and Max) documented as an active futures line on E8's own help centres — daily payout requests with per-size caps; prices not stated

E8's own product-overview article (July 14, 2026) lists E8 Zero alongside E8 One, E8 Pro and E8 Signature, and its futures help centre details the line: 'Built for Futures traders who want minimal payout restrictions.' Sizes 50K/100K/200K with profit targets of $3,000/$6,500/$13,500. The challenge phase has a '40% Best Day rule' and a '3% EOD-Dynamic Drawdown'; the performance stage has no consistency rules and no daily profit cap. Payouts: 'You can request it every day!', minimum $100, capped per size (Starter: $1,000/$1,600/$2,100; Max: $3,000/$5,000/$7,000), maximum 5 payouts per account, then a free reset. Prices are not stated on the pages reviewed. Our tracked row (E8 One 200K) is unchanged; this entry closes the watch opened when the name first appeared in a help-centre taxonomy header.

FundingPips' 100% monthly split now requires 7 profitable days as well as a 35% consistency score — effective 15 August 2026

We already recorded that 2 Step Standard lets a trader trade cadence for split, up to "100%" monthly. The firm's own 2 Step Standard help article now dates and qualifies that option: "Request a Reward with a 100% split every 30 calendar days after the first executed trade on the Master Account. Effective 15 August 2026", gated on a 35% consistency score and "at least 7 profitable days". The 7-profitable-days requirement was not in our record and it changes what the option is worth: a 100% split you can only claim after seven separate profitable days is not the same product as an unconditional 100%. The other cadences are unchanged — Weekly 60% seven days after the first executed trade, Bi-Weekly 80% every 14 calendar days, On Demand 90% with the same 35% consistency score and a minimum 2% profit. Also re-confirmed on the same page: the weekend-holding suspension we logged on 2026-08-26 is still described as "A temporary change is in effect: holding trades over the weekend is currently not allowed on 2 Step Standard Master Accounts." It has now been in force since 29 January 2026 — over seven months — which is worth weighing if you swing trade.

Topstep's own help centre documents 'Topstep Labs': two limited one-time products — the 25K Static at $75 and the 250K Freedom at $499

Topstep's own help centre documents 'Topstep Labs' — 'Real experiments. Limited drops. Built with the community.' The '$25K Static Drawdown Trading Combine' is '$75 one-time — no subscription. 90 Day expiration', with a $1,000 static (non-trailing) maximum loss and a $500 daily loss limit, launched June 2026. The '$250K Freedom Funded Trading Combine' is '$499 one-time — no subscription', with a $15,000 profit target, a $10,000 trailing maximum loss and a $5,000 daily loss limit, launched July 2026. Limited quantities, no resets; once sold out, a drop is gone permanently, though successful experiments may graduate into regular programs. Our tracked row (50K Combine) is unchanged.

Test resets risk-adjusted by size ($79–$199) since 2026-05-16, replacing the flat $100 — one TPT landing still shows $100

Take Profit Trader's own blog (May 11, 2026) announced risk-adjusted Test reset pricing effective May 16, 2026: 25K $79, 50K $99, 75K $139, 100K $169, 150K $199, replacing the flat $100 ('Since then, test reset pricing has been a flat $100 across every account size. That never changed.'). TPT's own FAQ landing corroborates: 'You can reset any test account for as low as $79, depending on the account size.' A separate TPT campaign landing still states: 'You can reset any test account for $100.' We log both positions and do not resolve them. Correction: our pricing section showed the flat $100 reset as current until 2026-08-14; it had been superseded since 2026-05-16.

Homepage banners new code VAULT — discount size not stated

Lucid Trading's own homepage now carries a static banner: 'FOR THE BEST DEAL USE CODE : VAULT'. It is the first statically readable promo code on their site since we began tracking. No discount percentage or product scope is stated on the page, and product prices remain unreadable without JavaScript, so our tracked row is unchanged.

Legacy sale over: Apex legacy accounts can no longer be purchased — the tracked $29.70 100K deal is retired

Through 11 August the legacy-products page sold six legacy tiers (100K at $297 → $29.70 with SAVENOW). Today it reads 'The limited-time offer has ended. Be sure to check this page for future offers.', and the homepage states legacy products are 'No longer available for new purchases. Not impacted by any new programs.' We removed the Legacy 100K row from the deals ranking. Apex's current evaluations stay on sale with SAVENOW (up to 90% off, countdown ends around 26 August), but their prices only render with JavaScript, so no replacement price is tracked yet.

Row re-based: Alpha Pro 200K now tracked as the 6% variant at $847 — the 10% price has been unpublished for 14 days

We tracked 'Alpha Pro 200K (10%)' at $847, last sighted on the firm's own surfaces on 29 July. After 14 days without a public sighting — the checkout still shows $0.00 placeholders — we re-base the row on the variant the firm itself publishes: its own evaluation-cost article lists Alpha Pro 6% (2-step) at $847 for the 200K tier. The product page describes Alpha Pro with three risk variants (6%, 8%, 10%), but only the 6% price is published. With ALPHA20 (20% off all accounts, ends 31 August) the tracked price stays $677.60.

Size ladder for the SIZE codes now stated: 30% for $5K–$10K, 25% for $25K–$50K, 20% for $100K–$200K

The homepage now maps each code to account sizes: SIZE30 ($5K–$10K), SIZE25 ($25K–$50K), SIZE20 ($100K–$200K), under the banner "Every program. Every account size. Limited time." This closes the open question from our 7 August entry: SIZE20 is the applicable code for the 100K accounts we track, so the tracked price of $439.20 stands.

Public price table back on the Stellar page: 2-Step 50K shown at $299 — we tracked $299.99 from checkout

After six days with no publicly readable prices, fundednext.com/stellar-model again shows a full static price table: $6K $59, $15K $119, $25K $199, $50K $299, $100K $549, $200K $999. Our tracked row moves to $299 with this page as source; the earlier $299.99 came from the app checkout, which now sits behind a login.

Code ladder SIZE20 / SIZE25 / SIZE30 on the homepage: up to 30% off

Funded Trading Plus's homepage now shows three codes — SIZE20 (20%), SIZE25 (25%) and SIZE30 (30%) — under the banner 'BIGGER OR SMALLER, EVERY CHALLENGE IS DISCOUNTED' / 'Every program. Every account size. Limited time.' Which account sizes each code applies to is not stated. On the two-step page, the Classic 2-Step 100K still shows $549.00 → $439.20 with SIZE20, labelled 'BEST VALUE'.

Code OMO: 40% off Omo 2-Step challenges on Maven's own pages

Maven's pricing page and homepage now carry the banner '40% OFF Omo Challenges with code OMO'. Prices sighted with the code: $2K $9, $5K $15, $10K $38, $20K $74, $50K $143, $100K $284 (list price $472 for the $100K). The Omo 2-Step itself (6% Phase 1 and 8% Phase 2 targets, 8% static max loss, 4% daily loss, minimum 4 profitable days of at least 0.5% per phase) is not new — Maven's blog introduced it on July 7, 2026 — but the code and these prices appear for the first time on the firm's own pages. No end date is stated. The standard 2-Step (our listed offer) keeps ETERNAL at 10%.

New Mini Account: $2,000–$100,000 tier with 70% split, 3% max loss and 2% daily loss

Maven's pricing page now lists a 'Mini Account' product flagged 'NEW!', a tier separate from the standard challenges: sizes from $2,000 to $100,000, a 70% profit split (versus 80% on the standard challenges), a 3% maximum loss and a 2% maximum daily loss per the Mini Challenge page. Prices shown with the ETERNAL code applied range from $16 ($2,000) to $396 ($100,000); for example, the $20,000 account costs $88, or $80 with ETERNAL. Refund policy and minimum trading days are not stated on the pages reviewed.

35% off all Clarity products announced on the homepage

The instantfunding.com homepage shows a promotion flagged as new: '35% off on all Clarity Products'. No associated code and no Clarity list prices appear on the public pages reviewed (prices render in the checkout), so we cannot compute the final price. The reduced-leverage notice ('leverage on Metals, Oil, and Indices is temporarily set to 1:5 on funded accounts only') remains published.

Flash code ALPHA30: 30% off all accounts through August 5; 10KFOR40 no longer listed

Alpha Capital's official codes page (updated 3 August 2026) adds the code ALPHA30: '30% off all accounts', valid 3–5 August as an 'August flash promo'. ALPHA20 ('20% off all accounts', 1–31 August) and FUNDED40 ('40% off Direct accounts', Alpha Direct only, 1–31 August) remain active. The code 10KFOR40, listed until now, no longer appears on the page.

New 1-Step FTMO Challenge: one phase, 10% target, 90% split — entry fee not refunded

FTMO's site now lists 'FTMO Challenge: 1-Step' alongside the classic 2-Step, flagged 'New': a single evaluation with no Verification phase. Objectives on FTMO's own page: 10% profit target, 3% maximum daily loss, 10% maximum loss, a 50% 'Best Day' consistency rule and unlimited trading period, with 90% of simulated profits on the FTMO Account. Unlike the 2-Step, the FAQ states: 'The entry fee is not refunded.' Prices for the 1-Step are not displayed on the page and could not be read from the checkout.

Giveaway detailed: guaranteed free $5,000 One-Phase Challenge; first 5,000 to hit target keep the funded account

Instant Funding's homepage now shows the full mechanics of the giveaway that had rendered inconsistently on previous checks — it is one campaign with two parts. Signing in with Google and installing the loyalty card lets you 'claim a guaranteed free $5,000 One-Phase Challenge', and the page adds: 'Become one of the first 5,000 traders to hit the profit target and keep your funded account'. Separately, 1,000 free $2,500 IF Crypto Moonshot accounts are given out at random. An availability meter reads '11% funded left as of today', so the campaign is close to exhausted. No promo code is attached.

Correction: relaunched Legacy accounts carry a $125 one-time PA fee — we listed $0 activation

Apex's own legacy-products page lists a one-time PA fee — 'One-Time PA Fee … One-time activation fee when you convert to a funded Performance Account. $125.00' — identical across all six legacy tiers. Our offers row for the Legacy 100K said 'no activation' ($0). Corrected to $125; the effective evaluation price is unchanged ($297/mo, $29.70/mo with SAVENOW). We cannot establish whether the fee was added after the 26 July relaunch or missed at transcription; either way the published $0 was wrong.

Code AUG replaces JULY on Tradeify's homepage: 40% off (5 uses, then 30%) until 31 August

Tradeify's own homepage now banners code 'AUG' — '40% OFF 5 TIME USE, THEN 30% OFF', 'ENDS 31 AUGUST, 11:59PM EST' — replacing the expired JULY code. The help-centre pricing reference confirms the Growth 50K list price at $145, so the tracked row's effective price is unchanged at $87 with the new code. The static homepage still renders every account card as '$359→$251', a known render artifact we do not transcribe.

Summer Plan detailed: three $100K tiers at $149 / $179 / $249 on The5ers' own page

The5ers' Summer Plan page now lists the full $100K lineup: 2-Step (10/5) at $149, 2-Step (8/5) at $179 and 1-Step at $249, described as a limited-time offer with no end date stated and no code required. This completes the 07-29 entry, which covered only the $149 and $249 tiers. Our tracked High Stakes 100K row is unchanged; High Stakes prices remain unreadable on the page (JS).

Code $60OFF live for the $100,000 tier on Bulenox''s homepage

Alongside the tracked $50OFF for the 50K tier ($175→$125/mo), Bulenox''s own homepage lists code '$60OFF' for the $100,000 tier. Transcribed from the firm''s homepage; our tracked 50K Option 1 row is unchanged.

Fast Track 100K gone: .com now redirects to .app; our row moves to the 1-Step 50K

elitetraderfunding.com/products, which still sold the Fast Track 100K at $26.25 one-time on July 30, now redirects (302) to elitetraderfunding.app/evaluations. On .app the Fast Track comes in a single size: '$10,000' ($500 drawdown, $2,000 target, 'The first month of funded activation is included in the Fast Track price'). The $26.25 Fast Track 100K we tracked is no longer purchasable, and the July 30 two-domain conflict is closed — the firm consolidated onto .app. Our comparison row now tracks the 1-Step 50K at $197/mo ('$197/mo — cancel anytime'), the price readable on ETF's own landing page; live prices in the .app plan picker load dynamically and are not readable. ETF's own cost calculator shows $167 for the same product but labels itself 'Pricing snapshot as of May 2026'.