TL;DR: Propr's four challenges differ in one ratio that matters more than any other: how much drawdown room you get relative to the profit target. Classic 1-Step gives the best no-edge odds (about 37.5%). The Classic 2-Step looks roomier on paper, but its no-edge odds are about 32% (simulated; the simple formula's 44% ignores the trailing floor). Turbo gives the least room but costs only $50. In our planning estimates, Turbo is the cheapest at about $200–220 per pass ($50 fee at roughly 23–25% odds), versus about $390 for a Classic 1-Step, but the right pick depends on how your strategy loses.
How do the four Propr challenges differ?
Here are the rules for a $10k account, from Propr's rules page as checked in late September 2026, with one extra column: the zero-edge ceiling, the pass probability of a strategy with no edge at all.
| Challenge | Target | Daily loss | Max drawdown | Fee ($10k) | Zero-edge ceiling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classic 1-Step | +10% | 3% | 6% static | $110 | ≈ 37.5% |
| Turbo 1-Step | +9% | 3% | 3% static | $50 | 25% |
| Pro 1-Step | +12% | 3% | 5% static | $85 | ≈ 29.4% |
| Classic 2-Step | +5%, then +10% total | 5% | 8% trailing | $100 | about 32% (simulated) |
The ceiling is drawdown ÷ (target + drawdown), the classic gambler's ruin result for a random walk between two barriers. It does not depend on your position size. It is the baseline any real strategy has to beat, and our odds math post derives it step by step. For the Classic 2-Step the no-edge odds are about 32% (simulated; the simple formula's 44% ignores the trailing floor).
Shared rules across all four: no time limit, breaches judged on equity at any moment (including open positions), daily loss measured from the 00:00 UTC realised balance, and leverage capped at 10x on BTC, ETH and SOL and 2x on other crypto.
What does each rule set reward?
Classic 1-Step
A +10% target with a 6% static floor and a 3% daily limit. The static floor sits at $9,400 on a $10k account and never moves, which is forgiving once you are in profit: at $10,500 you have $1,100 of room. The binding constraint is the daily limit. In our backtests of the Classic 1-Step Fast plan, 36% of starts failed on daily loss and only 4% on drawdown. This challenge suits strategies with steady day-to-day results and no clustered losing days.
Turbo 1-Step
A +9% target with a 3% static floor, the same size as the 3% daily limit. That makes it the tightest of the four: a single bad day can take you straight to the floor, and drawdown, not the daily limit, is the more common failure (28% of Turbo Fast starts vs 13% on daily loss). In exchange, the fee is $50. Turbo suits two kinds of trader: those running a short, high-conviction attempt they are prepared to repeat, and those with a very smooth strategy that rarely draws down more than a couple of percent.
Pro 1-Step
A +12% target with a 5% static floor. You need to travel further than on the Classic with less room underneath, so the no-edge odds drop to about 29.4%. The Pro Fast plan failed 30% of starts on daily loss in our backtests. The Pro makes sense mainly if you have a strategy with a demonstrated edge.
Classic 2-Step
A +5% first step, then +10% total, with a 5% daily limit and an 8% trailing drawdown. Balance and high-water mark carry over between steps, so it is one run to +10%. The trailing floor is the high-water mark minus $800 on a $10k account (8% of the starting balance, not of the peak), and it stops rising once it reaches the starting balance. On paper this has the most room: the simple dd/(target+dd) formula gives 44%. In practice the trailing floor follows the peak until it locks at the starting balance, which lowers the no-edge odds to about 32% in our simulations, and a strategy that rallies and then gives back $800 fails, even though it was in profit at its peak (the breach lands at or below the starting balance). Drawdown dominated failures in our 2-Step plans (30% of Fast starts). The trailing vs static drawdown guide works through examples.
How did our plans do on each challenge?
Trigr publishes three house plans per challenge on Discover › Propr. These are in-sample backtest results: a fresh challenge started on every UTC day since 2023-07-24 (2024-04-02 for Conservative), each given up to 365 days under Propr's exact rules.
| Challenge | Fast: pass / median days | Balanced: pass / median days | Conservative: pass / median days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classic 1-Step | 60% / 20 | 87% / 53 | 100% / 193 |
| Turbo 1-Step | 59% / 19 | 73% / 44 | 90% / 222 |
| Pro 1-Step | 58% / 18 | 76% / 44 | 93% / 210 |
| Classic 2-Step | 63% / 20 | 87% / 49 | 100% / 193 |
Do not read these as expectations. The plans were picked with the 2025 data visible, and overlapping daily starts are not independent attempts. In our out-of-sample research, picks that scored 40–80% in-sample passed about 25–34% of later starts within 180 days, and the realistic planning figure for the slowest, smallest-size tier is 40–55%. The pass-rate post has the full table and method.
The pattern across challenges is still useful. Turbo's Balanced plan lags the others (73% against 76–87%), which matches its tighter floor. Classic 1-Step leads, matching its higher no-edge ceiling.
What does a pass actually cost?
The fee is not the cost. The cost is the fee divided by your chance of passing, because on average you pay for every failed attempt too.
| Challenge | Fee | Fee ÷ zero-edge ceiling | Our planning estimate per pass |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classic 1-Step | $110 | about $293 | about $390 |
| Turbo 1-Step | $50 | about $200 | about $200–220 |
| Pro 1-Step | $85 | about $289 | no estimate yet |
| Classic 2-Step | $100 | about $313 (no-edge estimate, using the simulated 32%) | no estimate yet |
The middle column is arithmetic, not data: what a pass would cost if your odds sat exactly at the zero-edge ceiling. Our Classic 1-Step planning figure is worse than that, because costs and the daily limit pull a real strategy below the ceiling unless it has an edge. Turbo's figure is about $200–220 per pass ($50 fee at roughly 23–25% odds), assuming fast strategies that resolve in one or two days; out of sample, a daily SMA50 trend on BTC and ETH at high size passed about 22–25% of starts within 1–2 days.
Time matters too. A Conservative plan with a median near 200 days ties up your attempt for most of a year. A fast Turbo attempt tells you within days whether you need to buy another.
Which challenge suits you?
- Pick Turbo 1-Step if you want the cheapest attempt, accept that each try is a long shot, and can stay disciplined about repeating rather than chasing. Its tight floor punishes anything else.
- Pick Classic 1-Step if your strategy has steady daily results and you want the most forgiving static floor. Budget every position for the 3% daily limit.
- Pick Classic 2-Step if your strategy has occasional sharp days that would break a 3% daily limit but recovers well, and you understand how the trailing floor follows the peak.
- Pick Pro 1-Step only with a strategy that has an out-of-sample edge. With no edge, its odds are lower than the Classic's (29.4% vs 37.5%), and its $85 fee only just offsets that.
Whatever you pick, remember the funded account keeps the same loss limits. Choose rules you can live with after you pass, not just rules you can sprint through.
How Trigr fits in
On Trigr you can compare all four challenges' plans on Discover › Propr, or build your own strategy and let the rules check replay it from every start day against the exact account you connect. Optimize sizing shrinks positions until the backtest fits with a 0.5% buffer, and paper agents let you forward-test before paying a fee. When you are ready, open a Propr challenge and follow the trading agents docs to connect it. Every figure here is historical; none of it promises a pass.